From: Scott Chase (email@example.com)
Date: Tue 27 Jan 2004 - 01:33:05 GMT
>From: Keith Henson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: memetics/memics/mimetics
>Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:45:16 -0500
>At 07:09 AM 26/01/04 -0500, jeremy wrote:
>> >> every few months somebody comes in here and for some
>> >> reason tries to redefine "meme." I or someone else
>> >> generally pipes up, if only for the record.
>>Given the current displeasure about definitions, I have to ask: Which
>>is more correct for the study of infectious ideas, "memetics" (as has
>137,000 hits on Google. Adding "meme" brings it down to 21,700
>Category: Science > Biology > Sociobiology > Memetics
>>"memics" (after Dawkins, 1986/1991, p.158),
>68 hits on Google, most of them not related to memes.
>>(after Dawkins, 1976, p.192)?
>18,400 hits. But adding "meme" drops it to 274 (many of which look very
>(Also Category: Science > Biology > Sociobiology > Memetics)
>So from usage memetics comes out ahead by on the order of 100 to one (at
>Commenting on the rest of your interesting post will take more time than I
>have now. Will try to get to it this evening.
What sort of criterion is hits on google beyond being a popularity contest? Does popularity translate to validity?
Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed
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 : Tue 27 Jan 2004 - 01:44:41 GMT