Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA26761 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 24 Apr 2001 06:30:17 +0100 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:27:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Trupeljak Ozren <email@example.com> Subject: Re: The Status of Memetics as a Science To: firstname.lastname@example.org In-Reply-To: <20010423112908.AAA18084@email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
--- "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Trupeljak Ozren -
> >and unless you are
> >familiar with that (language?mode of thought?) way of describing the
> >world, his explanation means nothing.
> But, he _can_ explain it to me. And make it useful. Meaning nothing
> temporary if the mechanism is true and valid. This is science. What
> useful is not culturally constrained.
He can explain it to you if you accept that axioms of euclidean
geometry are true. Of course, today we know that you can have
geometries that use different axioms; and are still very much "true".
For someone who proffesses a scientific view you have a remarkably
close horizonts....reminding me somewhat of a certain brilliant italian
lawyer-amateur mathematician of 17th century who deduced a
non-euclidean system of geometry (while trying to prove the "truth" of
Euclid's original axioms), but was so repulsed by the notion of it,
that he denounced his discovery as abomination, and did everything he
could to forget it. :)
> So, yes, I've walked the earth, from pole to pole, and all the other
> earths in all the other walks there could ever be, and all the sticks
> cast likewise shadows.
> - Wade
It seems to me that you perceive me as a sort of cultural relativist
who argues that all the views on reality are equaly right or equaly
wrong, because they are based on our perception, which is incomplete
and subjective. (thus the prolonged entrenchment and iteration of your
Well, I am not. I believe that some views have closer correspondence
with the "truth out there" then some others; science in most cases
works far better to explain the phenomena of our Universe then most
religions do. The point I was trying to make is that even that
venerated old lady Science, can not, by its own nature (and definition)
describe the *complete* and *whole* truth about Universe.
It imposes certain limits on your perception.
(the above mentioned "rules" of the same)
If you are not aware of them, you are just as much a religious fanatic
as those who shot down the Buddha statues in Afganistan.
And if all the answers to the question of earth's roundness are the
same (as you implied in above post), and they are sphere (as
Aristophanus claimed) then you are wrong, just as he was. Earth is
If there weren't people who thought from a different point of view, one
that is inspired by intuition, or spark of imagination, the machine of
science would grind to a halt rather quickly, or get bogged down in
mindless iteration of known "truths" and "facts". Yes, you can produce
many true theorems that way, but how many of these are significant? How
many of them have a chance to describe truths unprovable within the
system? How many of them *are* truths unprovable by the system? How
will you ever devise a new system of thought, a new model of reality,
if you stick to the same axioms forever?
(still very sceptical about the whole idea behind One True Way Of
Looking At Universe)
There are very few man - and they are exceptions - who are able to think and feel beyond the present moment.
Carl von Clausewitz
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
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 : Tue Apr 24 2001 - 06:33:45 BST