RE: Dawkins was right all along

From: Philip Jonkers (
Date: Wed Sep 26 2001 - 14:55:14 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Time to lower the boom (was: Dawkins View)"

    Received: by id OAA11175 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:59:54 +0100
    From: Philip Jonkers <>
    X-Authentication-Warning: www-data set sender to jonkers@localhost using -f
    Subject: RE: Dawkins was right all along
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:55:14 +0200 (CEST)
    References: <[]>
    In-Reply-To: <[]>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.6
    Precedence: bulk

    > I do see science as the unbiaser, and necessary for reflective
    > reflection, and not just a perspectively-marred and
    > lens-distorted glimmer.

    Hi Wade,

    In science there must be a strong interaction between experiment
    and theory (set of formalized beliefs following from
    primary assumptions). Ulitimately it is experiment that
    either confirms or rejects a theory. Consequently, science
    must aim to explain experiment. Science therefore necessarily
    has to be biased (towards experiment). However, this bias is
    plastic in the sense that it must conform unconditionally
    to experiment at all times.
    If this demand is not met, it's better calling it religion
    or metascience rather than science.

    > And science mixed with emotion is only true when it is art.

    Emotion is indespensible even in such a modest and unpretentious
    endeavour as science. Animals have emotion to reinforce or
    alter certain behavior. When you suffer the sad emotion
    you should try to prevent the very thing that made you sad
    next time. When you're happy you want to repeat the thing
    that led your happiness. When you're angry, you want to
    change or ease the current state you're in by neutralizing the
    culprit source or by effecting retribution and thus to
    help prevent it to occur next time. Emotions are meant to
    take affirmative action. An animal without emotions is a zombie.

    When you're happy as a scientist with progress made, you simply
    continue along the path chosen. When you're unhappy, it's
    likely to make suitable changes aiming at making you happy
    ultimately. Emotions also determine your degree of motivation
    in conducting scientific research. If you don't think you'll
    like what you are about to embark in, you're level of motivation
    probably is inadequate. Therefore human emotions propel
    science (performed by humans).
    > And art is the cultural science.

    Art's no science. It's just an elevated form of pass-time
    activity. IMO, art means to express a moment of inspiration,
    preferrably laced with emotion of some kind, the artist had
    at the moment of creation of the art-work.


    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 : Wed Sep 26 2001 - 15:38:48 BST