From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Scholarly credibility
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:19:58 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Aaron Lynch
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 2:56 PM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Scholarly credibility
>
>
> At 01:00 PM 10/4/99 -0400, Aaron Agassi wrote:
> >Okay, to my relief, I definitely am not the Aaron in question.
>
> Indeed, you are not.
>
> Perhaps the Paul in question could further repair his scholarly
> credibility
> by looking up the word "argumeny" while he is in the library. I
> do not find
> it in the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, or in any other
> dictionary I have tried. Under the circumstances, a definition
> and a source
> for the word should be given when saying that my book contains
> "argumeny."
>
>
Perhaps a fusion of 'argument' and 'agony'?
>
> >
> >> -----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
> >
> >
> --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