Memetics Genetics

From: DeoxyriboNucleicAcid
And on this note, it's worth thinking about the fact that the crazies who came up with memetics were trying to strengthen their mumbo jumbo by appealing to an analogy with genes. Not something I can see happening when the concept of a "gene" is such a tarpit.

[The "crazy" who came up with memetics was RichardDawkins. He wasn't trying to strengthen his mumbo jumbo, he was becoming aware that replicators other than DNA/RNA can be subject to evolution. He realized that one could view culture as composed of discrete units in much the same way one views chromosomes.]

Blah blah blah. No, you CANNOT view culture as composed of discrete units like one views chromosomes. See MemesShmemes. And finally, being famous doesn't prevent someone from being a crazy. For example, RogerPenrose is a certified lunatic.

[Blah blah blah blah. I win. And I'll view culture any way I want to, thank you very much. I've seen MemesShmemes and I'm not swayed. Replicators that copy or stop copying based on their interaction with the environment demonstrate the same evolutionary principles observed by Darwin.]

Evolutionary theory provides a veritable constellation of explanations; see WhatEvolutionExplains on WhyClublet. What does memetic evolution explain? Absolutely nothing.

[Memetics is just one more thing that evolution explains. Evolution is bigger than biology.]

(moved tangential discussion to HostileStudent)

[The "natural" tree structure occurs in memetics. I make paper airplanes using these steps. I teach you. You simplify it and add a branch to the tree. You teach someone else and they modify it, adding another branch. It isn't the same tree as sexual reproduction, where every instance has 2 parents, but it forms a tree nonetheless. Every new variation has a parent.]


Memetics is just a model and all models are flawed. If one doesn't like the memetics model, how about suggesting alternatives?

The entirety of the fields of philosophy of mind, psychology, social psychology, et cetera. But of course, those are entire fields of science with no overarching theory. So they're very difficult to grasp. But then again, they're not a slapdash analogy that purports to be a theory, so their study will be infinitely more rewarding.

Probably the most widely respected of those pseudo-sciences is criminal forensics.


EditText of this page (last edited September 2, 2014) or FindPage with title or text search