Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA25851 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:55:55 GMT Message-ID: <C4C20D0AEF0BF84B90CFEA0105EEB0BD29ADC6@selene.shu.ac.uk> From: "Price, Ilfryn" <I.Price@shu.ac.uk> To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com> Subject: RE: Selfish Meme? Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:22:17 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Derek, I again agree generally
> If somebody is
> talking rubbish in science, it's only a matter of time before
> they get sorted out. That's one of the great things about
> science, and why unlike most arenas of human activity,
> science does display some kind of genuine progress.
However that progress is episodic and science does have a tendency to cling to old paradigms until "The old guard finally dies or retires"
(I think but do not have the reference that that was Bohr). Science in that sense is still a social construct or a paradigm replication
system (Hull, 1988) or a creation of memeplexes (for those of us of the inclusive bent), albeit one where the selection process is
ultimately grounded in objective reality (just to raise a few constructionist hassles. Therein lies the great hope of memetics (which is why
some fear it) putting some science (back into for there is an evoluionary tradition) into social science.
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 : Fri Jan 25 2002 - 17:04:02 GMT