Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA08136 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:41:12 GMT Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 18:35:58 -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: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <429FA3E8-24C8-11D6-A677-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Monday, February 18, 2002, at 04:50 , Francesca S. Alcorn wrote:
> There is a line of thought that says that magical thinking/emotional
> thinking is a sort of short-hand for combining emotional needs with
A line I've always liked. It's kind of empirical....
> But I assure you, to the people in my village, a witch doctor and a
> shaman were two very distinct people. One was a hitman, the other a
Yup, good witch, bad witch. Depends on who bribed the constable first.
Reputation. Favors. Influence. Not efficacy.
> You draw a line (empiricism) which lumps them together.
The line I draw is evidence. Neither has any.
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 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 00:13:01 GMT