>Nate H. wrote:
>>Then I'd say most folks have undergone such a "test".
>>Quite literally. I'm taking about the kind of test we all had to take in
>>school. Like the SAT or ACT.
>
>What?!
>
>> What is a test after all but an evaluation
>>to see if certain memes have successfully replicated into your mind? Its
>>the kind of data scientists love, ready made, complete with error
>>analysis!
>
>No, it is not data of any such sort at all. It is a result of a specific
>test, created to determine the amount of concordance the test-takers have
>with an expected result.
Now wait a mintute! Isn't EVERY scientific experiment a "specific test
created to determine the amount of concordance the (gathered data) have with
an expected result"??? That's why one forms a hypothesis and then...
well... _TESTS_ it, after all. (For lack for a better word--and that mainly
because there simply isn't one! TEST, TEST, TEST, TEST!)
>Nope, and this is exactly the sort of claim of 'experimental' evidence
>that makes 'memetics' just as specious and meretricious as phrenology,
>and causes scientists who deal in actual experimental protocols to be so
>derisive of all such claims.
Are you claiming that tests on human subjects lack repeatablity? Or that
experimental protocols cannot be applied to human minds? Why this mystical
notion from you of all people?
-Prof. Tim