From: Van oost Kenneth (email@example.com)
Date: Sun 03 Nov 2002 - 11:45:06 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Bradley" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> There are apparently a lot of conjectures, deductions and speculations in
> your empirical research methods. Why can't the 'hard' sciences realise
> culture needs to be examined qualitatively and be done with it?
They realise it, I hope, but can 't say that it is so !
It is a question of ideology !
It is a question of being alfa or béta, of being in charge of your own life
or being the ball culture plays with.
It is a question of being individualisticly or being collectively
it is a question of being inspired by Lamarck or by Darwin, it is a
question of being part of the ' old ' science ( alchemy and witchcraft) or
being part of the ' new ' humansciences.
Science is at the mercy of the democratic doctrine that everything and
all are biased along a same, equal template.
Science can 't spell out that one culture is better than another, although
some voices are heard.
Science is reduced to stop saying that the notion that the one who is
fitter will survive is true.
That is the paradow of democracy and science sits in the middle 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 2.1.5 : Sun 03 Nov 2002 - 11:32:42 GMT