Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA13893 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 20:18:44 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:13:09 +0300 Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1017 From: Jarmo Pystynen <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Message-ID: <B8DFAF75.8C18firstname.lastname@example.org> In-Reply-To: <200204141536.QAA13539@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
on 14.4.2002 18:36, memetics-digest at email@example.com wrote:
>> It suggests that watching
>> violence on TV DOES lead to a greater propensity for violent behavior
>> in the
Let's make a thought experiment!
Let's first assume for the sake of argument that we have a hypothesis which
"watching violence on TV creates violent behaviour in the viewer".
How do we construct a test to prove this hypothesis correct?
Now let's build up another hypothesis from a different starting point:
"Watching violence on TV DOES NOT produce violent behaviour in the viewer"
Now I ask you to provide a means to test this hypothesis!
Reflect this dilemma for a minute and then answer me : is there any possible
way to prove either one of these opposing views correct in any other than
statistical way? This means simple counting of cases...
Falsifiability does not enter into these hypotheses and that's their
My point: simplified schemes DO NOT produce relevant results!
Any human behaviour is a construct of various parameters and only a fool
would make decisions based on one plain test set-up!
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 : Sun Apr 14 2002 - 20:29:50 BST