Talk:Memetics
|
|
Nearly every time I've heard memes and memetics mentioned, by philosophers and by others, it has been scoffingly. At least two of the complaints I vaguely recall is that it's just a pseudo-scientific fad and that it's an example of academic imperialism at its worst. A commonly made point is that biologists just aren't trained to think about culture and so naturally the whole notion is facile. Now, I am not saying this in order to get into a debate about these accusations--I'm saying them in order to try to get someone to add some such evaluations to the article. I'm not the person, because I personally don't know anything of significance about memetics (for all I know, I'd be the most avid memetics supporter, if I learned more about it; or I might end up supporting the views I just mentioned). I also have no idea how common the above criticisms are or whether they are fair. All of these things I don't know are important knowledge to have in presenting this issue as part of the article. But I do believe that the issue needs to be presented, either here or as part of the meme article.
By the way, we need to decide carefully really belongs in the meme article and what belongs in the memetics article. They can overlap, but as a first guess, I would say that the meme article should be about memes, while the memetics article should be about memetics. :-) --LMS
I think of memes and memetics as the arch-example of scientism, the idea that the *methods* of the natural sciences (as opposed to the *insights* thereof) are appropriate to all things, but then again too much of the 'sociobiology' I've heard in public is biologists talking about society rather than anything more substantive. --MichaelTinkler
You mean "methods of science" like honest observation, rational discussion, rigorous testing? If those aren't appropriate tools for studying society, then I weep for its future. --LDC
Well. Let's start with "testing". Who's going to conduct the human experimentation to see if memetics works at a societal level. We're not talking about college students pressing buttons in a cognitive science lab, here! It's much more like the legend of Frederick II Hohenstaufen having orphan children raised without human speech to see what language they would turn out to speak (the Adamic language was the theory). --MichaelTinkler
Argument from lack-of-imagination is less than convincing. Yes, it's difficult to imagine ways to test societal influences, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Good after-the-fact analysis is one way (comparing similar cultures to determine the effects of a few variable); computer simulation is another. --LDC
indeed, lack-of-imagination is not convincing, but neither is the idea that there can be a few variables between similar cultures. Ants seem to work that way (what I've read about Wilson on ants is very convincing -- I was much less convinced by Wilson on the death penalty) but the evidence from anthropology is more recalcitrant. To begin with, observer phenomenon seldom seems to cause much trouble with ants.
Yes, it's very difficult. I understand why people often disdain "scientific" approaches to sociology, but what they generally mean to disdain is the jumping to conclusions by some over-eager human scientists on the basis of very limited data; things like evolutionary psychology can indeed be faulted for that. But the problem is not the scientific methods, but the natural human tendency to over-generalize from their results. The cure is greater adherence to the real principles of science--most significantly honesty and skepticism--not abandonment of them for other methods. --LDC
Current version of article says:
- It tries to explain many very controversial subjects, like religions and political systems, using mathematical models.
How many studies of memetics have actually used mathematical models? I can't see why they couldn't be used, and I think I've even seen one or two papers attempting to construct these models for memetics; but 99% of the work on memetics I've seen has not used mathematical models. (It has mostly not even been applications of memetics, just arguments about the validity of memetics as an approach.) -- Simon J Kissane
The article defines memes as:
- basic replicating unit of information
Can someone give me an example of a non-replicating unit of information? It seems to me that this definition reveals two fundamental problems with the notion of "memes": first, the term seems redundant (why not just call it "information?"); second, by invoking the model of "genes" it suggests that ideas or units of information reproduce themselves through mechanisms analogous to genetic reproduction.
Personally, the whole thing does smack of pseudoscience to me -- not because scientific methods are not appropriate to the study of humans (although the specific methods of specific sciences, like astronomy or molecular biology, may be inappropriate), but because it is really employing a metaphor to explain things. There may be something poetic about comparing ideas to genes, but making such comparisons hardly explain anything. In short, it doesn't sound like a theory to me, just an analogy.
I assume that there are people out there, including somewho have contributed to this article, who owuld disagree with me. I appeal to those people to clarify the definition of "meme" to make clear what this word adds to our conceptual tool-kit that is not already present in the phrase "idea," and, if possible, to explain a bit more how memetics is a scientific theory that has the power to explain things that people could not explain before the development of this theory, SR
How about adding a link to Viruses of the Mind ? susano 05:07 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)
Since I can't conceive of a principled distinction between stuff to put in meme and stuff to put in memetics, I propose that we merge the two. I propose the merged article be called "memetics", because that seems a more encyclopedic name. Objections? --Ryguasu
- "Meme" is the better name: although it is as yet an informal idea, it deserves its own article. "Memetics" suggests that there is an established science of memes, which there isn't as yet. If or when there is a science of memetics, we should have an article for it: at the moment, a sub-section in "meme" will be good enough for this. -- Anon
SR raises what he sees as two fundamental problems with the notion of memes: (a) that "meme" seems to be a redundant term, just another word for "information", and (b) the implicit notion that memes reproduce themselves through mechanisms analogous to genetic reproduction.
I think these are key questions, and it's difficult to see the article/s developing any further (or even just staying much as-is without controversy) unless there is some exploration of them. I'm sure that there are many answers to SR's questions. Here are mine. (For the sake of clarity and to stimulate thoughtful responses, these are over-simplified and shorn of "ifs" and "buts".)
(a) "Meme" is just another word for "information", the term is redundant. As a concept, yes: "meme" adds nothing. Gregory Bateson walked over all this territory many years ago, as did Marvin Harris. (Others to list here?) The one thing that is new about "memes" instead of "transmissible information" is that the term is intuitive: almost anyone can understand it. It seems to have neither the universal reach nor the subtlety of Bateson's formulation, but it is enormously more approachable. By recasting an old idea in a new and simple form, Dawkins took it out of the realm of obscure academic writing (if you have ever read Bateson in the original you'll know what I mean), and into the mainstream of human thought. This is its prime value.
[b) By invoking the model of "genes", "memes" suggest that ideas or units of information reproduce themselves through mechanisms analogous to genetic reproduction. Quite so. The question then becomes what is the harm in this? The immediate knee-jerk response is along the lines of "it is ridiculous to postulate that ideas and fashions and societies have genes and DNA chains, or anything remotely similar, therefore it is nonsense." But the mechanism by which information is encoded is irrelevant to the uses to which that information is put, and provided that the accuracy and reliability of reproduction is similar between any two different physical mechanisms, then for practical purposes we can ignore them. The actual encoding method, in other words, can for most purposes be regarded as a "black box" about which we need know nothing, so long as we know the degree to which we can rely on it. There is no better example of this than the development of the theory of natural selection. Darwin and Wallace knew nothing of genes, they had never heard of DNA or RNA, they had not the slightest clue as to how the giraffe embryo "knew" to grow a long neck, they simply observed that it did indeed grow a longer neck than the zebra embryo, and proceeded to formulate their wonderfully productive theories anyway - leaving the details of the physical mechanism for others to explore.
So far so good: we don't need to specify the encoding mechanism to think about "memes". We should not make the mistake, however, of taking the parallel too far. There is no particular reason why we should believe that a single, easily described encoding mechanism exits, or that it will be found in due course (we need not stand around waiting for the long-neglected papers of a 20th Century Gregor Mendel of The Mind to turn up). Information is stored, it is transmitted with varying degrees of success, it endures or does not endure. That is all. Whether we think of it as "memes" or in some other, broadly equivalent way becomes irrelevant from a purely scientific view, it's just putting different labels on the same black box. From a sociological or historical point of view, however, it is not irrelevant. Different formulations of ideas, different expressions of them, have different implications for action, change societies in different ways.
To summarise, I am suggesting that, strictly speaking, the term "meme" may very well be redundant, but that its usage is nevertheless important from a sociological point of view, especially as regards the sociology of science. Further, I suggest that the genetic analogy is best viewed not as a line of scientific enquiry, but as a tool used by scientists and others to persuade people to their point of view. In this regard, if no other, it is important and deserving of coverage in Wikipedia. Tannin 12:04 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)
I've been talking this over with a colleague-- about the appropriateness of the concept of memes. I wrote the following theory in an attempt to frame the study of information's dissemination-ability:
- For over 99% of the human population, the attributes of an idea affect the transmission of this idea. The attributes will affect: (1) how likely an individual is to pass on the idea, (2) to whom the individual is likely pass the information, and (3) the manner in which the idea is transmitted.
- If this theory is true, then it follows that:
- Different designs of similar ideas will have different (or no) uses in society
- It may be possible to make further theories matching idea attributes to transmission effects in a specific society
- We can improve the quality of education by examining alterations to ideas that make them more likely to be assimilated by the student
- If this theory is false, then it follows that:
- Ideas are transmitted randomly, without regard to the attributes of the idea
(from a dedicated wiki (http://chira.net/clarify/Memes/))
Is this theory precise enough to be useful? It doesn't seem to exactly correspond to meme theory, since there isn't a "meme theory," memes are just a way of looking at information in a cultural context, right?
Is there somebody who has already stated this theory? Where might I go from here?
thanks, Chira 23:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Meme theory
Let's not be overly enthusiastic, here. It's not even certain that memetics is an accurate theory, or that it's even useful if it is, or just extra terminology. [1] (http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-2716.html) --Maprovonsha172 19:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)