Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA06247 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:36:27 GMT Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:31:14 -0500 Subject: Re: Words and memes: criteria for acceptance of new belief or meme Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <JJEIIFOCALCJKOFDFAHBMEAJEGAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <ECF260DF-248C-11D6-88A5-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Sunday, February 17, 2002, at 07:03 , Richard Brodie wrote:
> Wade, for instance,
> has supreme faith in empiricism and is unwilling to consider models that
> lack empirical testability. I would guess he is happy with his faith
> and the
> results it produces in his life.
Nice to know.
However, I'm more than willing to consider all sorts of things. As a
result, I haven't settled upon any faith that produces results in my
life. Then again, I really don't think there are any models (qua models)
that can't be tested empirically. Supernatural things don't model.
I can't be happy with a faith I don't have. Or unhappy. I am
disinterested in faith. If you consider that a faith, so be it. But
you're using a definition of the word that I am not aware of.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 18 2002 - 16:57:16 GMT