From: Kate Distin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon 01 Aug 2005 - 18:34:57 GMT
Keith Henson wrote:
> At 12:04 PM 31/07/05 +0100, Kate wrote:
>> But at least biological evolution is an accepted scientific theory
>> which stands firm on the available evidence - memetics is too new and
>> untested to withstand the impact of too many non-explanations: the
>> cumulative effect will be a feeling that memetics has no explanatory
>> I remain fairly hopeful that it does have explanatory worth, but I
>> don't think we're there yet!
> Memetics does not have explanatory power simply because the frame is too
> small. You have to understand the meme's host to be able to say much
> about its life cycle. Trying to look at memes alone is like trying to
> study the malaria parasite without considering its hosts and vectors.
> Best wishes,
> Keith Henson
Memetics, seen as the study of memetic evolution, would encompass both
memes and their environment (including human minds) - just as the study
of genetic evolution encompasses both genes and their environment.
Memetics doesn't have to over-emphasise the power of the meme, and
dismiss human autonomy and psychology.
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 : Mon 01 Aug 2005 - 18:50:45 GMT