From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Scholarly credibility
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:00:05 -0400
Okay, to my relief, I definitely am not the Aaron in question.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Aaron Lynch
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 11:49 AM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Scholarly credibility
>
>
> At 12:57 PM 10/4/99 +0200, Gatherer, D. (Derek) wrote:
> >Aaron:
> >It occurs to me that my silence on this article [by Paul
> Marsden] may have
> >been mistaken by
> >some as indicating tacit agreement, or even that you [Paul] Marsden] have
> >restored
> >scholarly credibility after the JASSS "review."
> >
> >Derek:
> >As far as I'm concerned, and as far as anyone else is concerned,
> Paul has no
> >problems with scholarly credibility.
>
> Really? Anyone who can give a cursory read of his references section can
> start finding errors quite quickly. Start by looking for the book whose
> title is mutated into inflated language. If Marsden wants to improve his
> scholarly reputation, then perhaps he could start by going to the library
> and actually reading the titles of the works he cites directly and report
> back the correct titles and other information. I am not going to do the
> work for him: he should have already done it himself. Nor am I going to
> assume that he has actually seen, let alone read, all the works he cites.
> The misquotations and falsifications of my own work are a main subject of
> my upcoming rebuttal.
>
> >What are your credentials to decide on this matter, anyway?
> Have you held
> >an academic position? Do you have a higher degree?
> >
> >If someone who is qualified to judge on matters of scholarly credibility
> >were to tell me that Paul is discredited as a scholar, then I might be
> >prepared to listen - but so far no one has.
> >
> >So, Aaron, I suggest you either put up or shut up.
>
> More foul language from Gatherer.
>
> He has previously published unscientific (if caustically amusing) terms
> like "damned lies," etc. that should never have made the scientific
> literature. He has announced "mouthfoaming anger."
>
> For those who are honestly wondering why I do not hold certain
> conventional
> academic in memetics, it is because the paradigm I use was too new when I
> started in the 1970's. Still, famous professors have endorsed my thesis on
> a less formal basis, and while acclaimed professors have invited me to
> contribute to their publications. Are my credentials a big problem? If so,
> then why back someone who cites Le Bon, another honest and serious author
> who does not have conventional credentials?
>
>
> Incidentally, the present (October 4,1999) issue of _Forbes ASAP_ sheds a
> bit of light on the conflict between Dawkins and the lucrative "religion
> and science" enterprise. The article is called "Snake Oil and Holy Water,"
> (p. 235-238) but I would not be surprised if that Dawkins has criticiced
> "religion and science" subjects long before this. Given the money involved
> and the audiences Dawkins reaches, I would also not be surprised to find
> many people angry about it.
>
>
> --Aaron Lynch
>
http://www.mcs.net/~aaron/thoughtcontagion.html
===============================================================
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
===============================================================
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