Re: FW: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence

Date: Mon Mar 18 2002 - 03:12:57 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Fwd: Public relations disaster for UK science"

    Received: by id DAA19626 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 03:19:01 GMT
    From: <>
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:12:57 EST
    Subject: Re: FW: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113
    Precedence: bulk

    In a message dated 3/17/2002 4:49:39 PM Central Standard Time, Steve Drew
    <> writes:

    > Hi Aaron,
    > > Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 16:53:07 EST
    > > From: <>
    > > Subject: Re: FW: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence
    > >
    > > In a message dated 3/17/2002 11:06:28 AM Central Standard
    > > Time, Douglas Brooker <> writes:
    > >
    > >> Thanks for this.
    > >>
    > >> If I were conducting a study, my instinct would lead me to pay
    > >> special attention to what scientists participating in the 'love fest'
    > >> receive or perceive they receive from the mystical side. We can
    > >> understand the way the aura of science serves to enhance the
    > >> claims of mystics, but less understandable is what scientists receive
    > >> from the other side.
    > >
    > > Hi Douglas.
    > >
    > > There can be considerable financial and social incentive for
    > > scientists to sell out and join the "love fest." They may receive
    > > lucrative book deals, for instance. Moreover, many "nonfiction"
    > > books are actually conceived by literary agents, and that
    > > includes science books. The agents are often just looking
    > > for what will sell. So they may identify something that many
    > > people will want to believe when they read about it, or that they
    > > already believe or want to believe but would also like to see
    > > "justified" in "scientific" language. Scientists may also be drawn
    > > to the fame that can come from becoming an advocate for some
    > > mystical idea. And there are even rich prizes (e.g., Templeton)
    > > for connecting religion and science. All these sources of money
    > > and attention increase the formation rates of new ways of
    > > attaching science to mysticism, and then they increase the
    > > centralized transmissivity of the new idea combinations once
    > > formed.
    > >
    > > Attaching the name of an authority figure to a belief system
    > > also increases its transmissivity, receptivity, and longevity.
    > > (See my 2001 stock market thought contagions paper on
    > > that.) People feel more confident about voicing and
    > > retransmitting an idea that they can attribute to an authority
    > > figure. If the recipient of the message disagrees, the person
    > > transmitting the message can always blame the authority
    > > figure. They also realize that the listener/recipient of the
    > > message is likely to give more credence to a message
    > > attributed to an authority figure. That added credence then
    > > increases the receptivity that the message enjoys. Finally,
    > > it can make people more inclined to remember the message,
    > > increasing its longevity.
    > >
    > > Scientists who can be presented to the public as authority
    > > figures can therefore be offered especially lucrative book
    > > deals and other ways of profiting from the believers in
    > > mysticism. Many scientists are aware of this.
    > >
    > > - --Aaron Lynch
    > Scientist are no more immune than other people from silly ideas, religion
    > etc. The pure pursuit of knowledge never was and will, IMO , truly be the
    > driving force for science. Or else why the race to publish first? Given
    > that many scientists earn very little, the temptation exists when offered a
    > serious wad to take it. Most scientists have families to support, and only
    > relative few can afford to have their own opinions.
    > But, yes, the authority figure is the important part when it comes to
    > selling the idea.

    Hi Steve.

    Yes, scientists have their own irrational motives, as well as
    requirements to put food on the table. Fellow scientists need
    to consider these forms of influence, as does the general
    public. People can benefit from being more savvy consumers
    of information, and the more savvy information consumers
    there are, the more the economics will favor honest works
    rather than contagious and profitable mysticism. Ideally, I
    would like to see less money and fame go to dishonest or
    mystical works and more go to the honest and serious efforts.

    Often, selling out to mysticism is done by people who already
    have food on the table, but who want to get rich. They
    can then have vested financial interests in attacking more
    honest and serious lines of work, or even claiming that the
    more honest and serious works are actually the mystical
    frauds. They can also have vested financial interests in
    deflecting attention from more honest and serious works.
    Awareness of such things may help improve the process,
    especially in today's highly competitive market economy.

    --Aaron Lynch

    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 Mar 18 2002 - 03:29:39 GMT