Subject: Re: implied or inferred memes
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 19:07:39 -0400
From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
To: "Memetics Discussion List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>So I don't think that it is necessary to provide any proof for NLP, to mak=
e
>the dynamics that I am suggesting any more plausible.
So, having left this discussion in a huff, citing irreconciliable
differences, are we now to conclude that you feel that memetics itself is
relegated to that limbo of pseudosciences which throughout the ages have
always used 'plausibility' as their 'proof'?
See especially #2 below- which is where, from my vantage, this whole
arena sits.
Why would you prefer that things remain in this state, and not desire
more validity?
That is my real question. To my mind, bringing in things like homeopathy
and NLP only dirty the waters, and make some of those you would probably
like to influence even more suspicious.
__________
plausible - adj.
1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible.
2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth, acceptability, or reliability;
specious. =8B
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit