From: Keith Henson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri 20 Feb 2004 - 05:27:10 GMT
At 11:31 PM 19/02/04 -0500, Scott wrote:
>On the other hand, social psychology is a social science. Would it as a
>discipline adhere to the SSSM that the EP'ers despise?
Most of the older religions have quit making claims that are in obvious
conflict with evidence. That makes adhering to the SSSM worse than a
religious because the foundation claims of the SSSM *are* in obvious
conflict with evidence.
>Certainly memeticists would not only want to learn something about
>sociology, but maybe more importantly social psychology, dealing as it
>does with individuals within social systems.
As I laid out in detail in a recent post, memetics deeply depends on
evolutionary psychology if it is going to go beyond how memes spread (which
generates tiresome S curves) into why memes spread such as the brain reward
system exploited by cult memes.
>Then again it would be unsurprising if social psychologists took interest
>in memetics as a newer view of things.
The field does seem to be in a flux. Some of them seem to have taken Tooby
and Cosmides to heart and are dumping everything that won't integrate into
the larger whole of scientific knowledge.
That's going to fill a few dust bins!
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 : Fri 20 Feb 2004 - 05:31:30 GMT