Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA10411 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:19:12 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3102A6D269@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Words and memes: criteria for acceptance of new belief or meme Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:10:33 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
<Rational empiricists take for granted that the best thing to fill
your mind up with is facts and good science.>
Well, I think that's absolutely not what rational empiricists do.
Nothing is taken for granted, everything is contingent on the weight of
available evidence. It's just that the weight of availabe evidence for the
utility of empirical testing of hypotheses_currently_ makes it clearly the
most appropriate method by which to understand natural phenomena.
<Classic literature, for one example, fills the mind with a variety
> narratives describing various aspects and points of view about the human
> condition. A healthy person synthesizes and references those narratives,
> using them to deal with everyday events and create goals and aspirations
> for the future. He or she uses them as guidelines for behavior and as a
> reference to judge what is and is not appropriate. By making and
> recognizing literary allusions, we smile and bond with others. This all
> has real value although it's difficult to test empirically, if for ethical
> considerations alone.>
Well, we might worry about those reading 'The Turner Diaries' and
"smiling" and "bonding". The utility of such things has been well worked
through in uses and gratifications literature, which in turn borrows
from/relates to psychology stuff on this kind of thing.
The thing is when people make leaps beyond the world of fiction to
fact, socially this is normally deemed unacceptable, whether it be shooting
a celebrity after reading 'catcher in the rye', or beating somene up after
watching 'a clockwork orange', but when somebody does this and claims it was
the Bible that inspired them, they are deemed mad. The difference between
Melville and Mark is that believers regard the latter as literal truth and
kill themselves with poisonous snakes due to their interpretations of a
disputed part of it.
<A good religion is part of a default set of narratives. Rational
empiricists get hung up on the myth aspect of religions, taking it on blind
faith that a make-believe story cannot possibly have any value. This is an
irrational position and a blind spot in the worldviews of many smart
OK, RANT alert!
It is perfectly understandable that people accept the irrational in
the absence of rationally acquired knowledge (like the lightening/witch
doctor example of Frankie's). What rationalists get hung up on is why
people persist in irrational beliefs in the presence of empirically acquired
evidence to the contrary. Further, it is the persistent contradictions in
people's thinking that frustrates, and the fact that societies are geared
towards privileging those irrational beliefs over and above all others-
books are banned, knowledge is censored etc. etc. to protect the irrational
beliefs of others. Who is that really benefitting? All it does is
perpetuate systems of social control- some will always benefit from
religions, many indeed most, will not. It is secular society that has
advanced the standard of living of people in the developed world, whereas
religion would like to keep people living in poverty in the belief that
"spiritual" wealth, and wealth in the "afterlife" is preferable to the evils
of material wealth (which are kept nice and safe away from the masses by the
kindly priests who spend it all on themselves and their temples).
It is also understandable that people choose the irrational over the
rational in dealing with terrible traumas because it is often easier than
facing the reality of events- like the woman whose husband died on the
Pittsburgh plane who believes God put him on the plane to prevent the
hijackers completing their nefarious scheme (as Richard Dawkins has pointed
out, why didn't "god" give the hijackers heart attacks before they got on
the plane, then all those passengers would have survived?). But this can be
very dangerous if people think that way in many other areas of life (say
when voting, or when acting as a jury member).
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
=============================================================== 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 10:28:56 GMT