On 25 Jul 2002 at 12:53, Jonathan Davis wrote:
> > Has anyone noticed that academics think memes are are stupid
> > idea? Has Dawkins?
>
> Perhaps you could give us a few examples?
Ask any academic familiar with the idea. Memes are part of Dawkins' popular
literature. "Unto
Others" is a good book of scientific quality in this area. Of course, it
doesn't cover memes, since
that isn't a scientifically validated concept.
> I would also like to see
> some reasons why you (or these 'authorities') think memes are stupid
> idea?
Me? I like the meme idea - I like ideas.
Funny how you dismiss academics by calling them "academics". Does a scholar
who doesn't
agree with a widely sold and easily digestable idea no longer a scholar?
> It would cheer me to hear that 'academics' thought memes are a stupid
> idea. These are after all probably the same people who believe in
> transgressing the Boundaries towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of
> Quantum Gravity.
How strange.
How is it Dawkins thinks that scientists can talk about sociological,
political, philosophical and
psychological ideas - outside of their own expertise - whereas social
scientists and artists cannot
discuss scientific ideas outside of their fields? What gives scientists the
ability to do this?
This is why "meme" is not a respected idea - the popular scientist (Dawkins)
is speculating
outside of his own field, just as the pomos do theirs.
At least, this is how many academics (or "academics"?) see it.
Personally, I think it is good for both "sides" to makes such speculations
and be informed by the
other "side" - just as the pomos are and just as Dawkins and his enthusiatic
followers should be.
The humanities and th sciences must come together. The split between them is
dangerous. Our
understanding must be holisitic. The idea is to bring the sciences and the
arts/social sciences
back together again, into a dialogue, where they can learn from each other.
The urgency of this
is evidenced by the fact that no member of the US congress has an
postgraduate scientific
qualification - yet, many of the science issues they have to deal with
require PhD level
understanding. How can they legislate? They don't. They rely on their crude
moralities.
The failures to unite this gap between scientific, low-level, explanations
and high level
humanities explanations has problematic political implications. This is
evidenced postmodern
theories as discussed, or by the common notion that nation-states are
separable, not part of a
unified biosphere, which leads to disastrous policies regarding pollution
control.
Walpurgis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
http://www.noumenal.net/exiles
Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the government police and
other authorities can, with out
a court order, demand that phone companies, internet service providers and
postal operators hand over
detailed information on individuals such as their name and address, phone
calls made and received, source
and destination of emails, the identity of websites visited and mobile phone
location data, which is capable
of revealing the user's whereabouts at any given time and is accurate to
within a few hundred metres.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,7369,731074,00.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT