logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024-03-28 15:26:09 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Do you want to know where you stand?

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Evolution and Memetics

  Is memetics a science?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Is memetics a science?  (Read 1360 times)
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.89
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Is memetics a science?
« on: 2003-06-12 15:48:09 »
Reply with quote

To continue our IRC chat here, I found a relevant post in memetics. Do you agree with Reed's criteria for what is a science? If so, how well does memetics fit the criteria?

Quote from: konslerr@mail.weston.org on 2003-06-11 09:51:57   

>The mechanics of protein-formation are still not known, and it's not at all
>clear that protein-formation, particularly at the quaternary level, is
>forced into place by purely chemical and mechanical factors.

Biochemistry is based on the premise that macroscopic events as simple as
crystallization and as complex as embryonic development are a result of
microscopic structure.  It is a mechanistic way of viewing the world.

A scientific theory requires several things.  This is more or less in order
from primary to peripheral

Mechanism:  A theory must relate causes and effects.

Elegance:  A theory must be understandable and teachable.

Significance:  Theories are only created to understand important things.
There is an opportunity cost associated with unlearning the intuitive and
learning the foreign.  If the benefit doesn't outweigh this cost, a new
theory will not be adopted.

Empirical Falsifiable:  A theory must engender experiments or directed
observations.  This isn't so much to confirm or refute the theory itself
(despite arguments, no single experiment has ever lead a person to chuck an
otherwise useful theory).  Rather, falsifiable experiments allow a theory to
be developed and refined.  Without empirical restriction a theory will
either remain amorphous or develop in an idiosyncratic way unlikely to be
useful.

Fecundity:  A theory must lead to more specific questions and hypotheses.
The more researchers and students that believe there is a niche for their
work under the umbrella of the theory, the more will adopt it.  Offer a
place at the table, and they will come.

Application:  A theory that doesn't do something for the community at large
will struggle and wither as resources are directed towards more useful
endeavors.  Actually, application often comes first:  something useful is
discovered by accident (like an antibiotic) and then scientists work to
understand it.

Truth is not a factor.  Exactly how a protein folds...indeed, if they even
exist at all...isn't relevant.  The question is:  if we believe and act on
that theory, what are the consequences?  The explosion of biochemistry and
biotechnology is a result of the fact that I can teach the basics of the
theory in high school, thousands of people can find work within the field,
and insulin can be manufactured cheaply in massive quantities.

Proteins might not fold according to a "mechanical" mechanism.  But, it's
pointless to argue that they fold according to no mechanism at all.

Which theory is most useful, of all that have ever been proposed?  I would
argue, at present, it is the biochemical model.

Best,

Reed




===============================================================
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)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit


Report to moderator   Logged
Ophis
Initiate
***

Posts: 176
Reputation: 5.12
Rate Ophis





View Profile E-Mail
Re:Is memetics a science?
« Reply #1 on: 2003-06-26 18:27:52 »
Reply with quote

Assuming Reed's definition of science as valid, this suggests that memetics would indeed be a science.  The application of memetics is probably the weakest point though. 
Report to moderator   Logged
rhinoceros
Adept
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 7.97
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Is memetics a science?
« Reply #2 on: 2003-06-26 22:12:18 »
Reply with quote


[David Lucifer]
To continue our IRC chat here, I found a relevant post in memetics. Do you agree with Reed's criteria for what is a science? If so, how well does memetics fit the criteria?

<quote>
A scientific theory requires several things.  This is more or less in order from primary to peripheral

Mechanism:  A theory must relate causes and effects.
<snip>

[rhinoceros]
If this is what mechanism means, then yes. It can even be a "black box" model with no gears or wheels. Can memetics correlate specific causes with a specific effect?


<quote>
Elegance:  A theory must be understandable and teachable.
<snip>

[rhinoceros]
Understandable is a reasonable requirement. Teachable... if it means that it can be communicated in an objective way, rather than resorting to claims of subjective experiences, then yes.

But I wonder why this entry was labeled "elegant". I do like elegance. I tend to associate it with "mathematical beauty,"  that is, simplicity of the premises and straightforward reasoning without exceptions and ad hoc assertions. Memetics does have simple premises, but I am not sure about the rest.


<quote>
Significance:  Theories are only created to understand important things. There is an opportunity cost associated with unlearning the intuitive and learning the foreign.  If the benefit doesn't outweigh this cost, a new theory will not be adopted.
<snip>

[rhinoceros]
I would agree, except the first sentence. It is not the "things" which should be importan. It is the theory which must be worth the trouble. The theory should offer an advantage.


<quote>
Empirical Falsifiable:  A theory must engender experiments or directed observations.  This isn't so much to confirm or refute the theory itself (despite arguments, no single experiment has ever lead a person to chuck an otherwise useful theory).  Rather, falsifiable experiments allow a theory to be developed and refined.  Without empirical restriction a theory will either remain amorphous or develop in an idiosyncratic way unlikely to be useful.
<snip>

[rhinoceros]
That would be great. It would even make memetics a "hard science."


<quote>
Fecundity:  A theory must lead to more specific questions and hypotheses. The more researchers and students that believe there is a niche for their work under the umbrella of the theory, the more will adopt it.  Offer a place at the table, and they will come.
<snip>

[rhinoceros]
An interdisciplinary science! More than I would ever ask! But it is not a requirement, and the downside is that it is already being done without having taken care of the scientific requirements.


<quote>
Application:  A theory that doesn't do something for the community at large will struggle and wither as resources are directed towards more useful endeavors.  Actually, application often comes first:  something useful is discovered by accident (like an antibiotic) and then scientists work to understand it.
<snip>

[rhinoceros]
Amen. Can memetics provide anything better than the techniques already known to the media and public-relations folks?


<quote>
Truth is not a factor.  Exactly how a protein folds...indeed, if they even exist at all...isn't relevant.  The question is:  if we believe and act on that theory, what are the consequences?  The explosion of biochemistry and biotechnology is a result of the fact that I can teach the basics of the theory in high school, thousands of people can find work within the field, and insulin can be manufactured cheaply in massive quantities.
<snip>

[rhinoceros]
"Truth is not a factor?" Strange way to put it. Usually, when carrying over the concept of truth from mathematics and logic to the modelled phenomena we say that truth is tentative, as a safety valve to account for replacing the model with a better one later on.

I guess if a theory involving proteins worked nicely, and someone with a microscope observed that proteins did not really exist, then the theory would still stay in place, with the understanding that proteins were imaginary conceptual entities. That would be ok.

Memes don't have to be material entities, however, the theory itself should have a claim to the truth.

Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Is memetics a science?
« Reply #3 on: 2003-06-27 02:03:29 »
Reply with quote

While following this line of thought, I came across this fascinating article, Is Psychology a Science? Paul Lutus, 2003. I think that he raises many valid issues in this article. I would suggest that the widespread acceptance of Psychology as a "science" points to the answer to the question, "is memetics a science?" Those who accept psychology as a "science" will probably also accept memetics as a "science". Those who assert that to be called a  "science", the discipline in question must insist upon the rigorous application  of the scientific method, probably will not.

This naturally raises the question of why some people label unscientific things as being scientific. And the answer to that may be that few people comprehend the rational of the scientific method, while most recognize (or at least have experienced) its benefits, so that the label, "scientific" has acquired the status of giving respectability to the the fields to which it is applied. For this reason, those more interested in legitimizing their brainstorms than validating them, and those attempting to defend their brainstorms from legitimate scientific enquiry, are often quick to label them as being "scientific", perhaps in the hope of providing a spurious air of respectability, rather as "by appointment to his majesty" was used in earlier times. Unfortunately it is somewhat easier to repudiate a pseudo supplier than a pseudo scientist, there being only a few monarchs at a time, and monarchs being easily identified as being heads of state, so one can ask, and receive an answer, about the veracity of such claims.

Even so, along the same lines, a good question is, "is this thing acknowledged by recognised scientists?" At this stage, as far as memetics is concerned, the answer has to be "no". Hard scientists look for repeatable, quantifiable results. Those calling memetics a science tend to be clustered in the "soft sciences" of sociology, psychology and so forth. And as the referenced article indicates, there is some quite legitimate doubt as to whether we should call such practioners "scientists" at all. After all, a "scientist" is undoubtedly somebody who applies the scientific method to their work. And ideas, no matter how labelled, tend to be quite elusive, far from repeatable, and although perhaps quantifiable, every hopeful memetic practitioner appears to have his own method of quantification. In these circumstances, the scientific method, seeking consensus, finds only noise. I suggest that this observation may be validated through an examination of the closest thing to a consensus currently possessed by memeticists (and their fellow travellers including sundry snake-oil peddlers), the "memetics list", associated with the "Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission", where the noise to signal ratio greatly exceeds that normally associated with scientific endeavours.

Kind Regards

Hermit
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Joe Dees
Heretic
*****

Posts: 5428
Reputation: 1.21
Rate Joe Dees



I love YaBB SE!

View Profile WWW
Re:Is memetics a science?
« Reply #4 on: 2003-06-27 22:53:39 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (1.21) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

« Last Edit: 2003-08-07 00:52:04 by Joe Dees » Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed