Richard Dawkins

[sniffy]

Please scientifically discuss the selection process in the transmission of the meme of "dude" (a catch phrase or slang term).

Identify language of word>locate geographical region or spread of language spoken>research history searching for early references to word "dude">cross reference the methodology of the lexographer

or another angle for investigative research -brain development>language development>local dialect>family>culture

to relate to evolution cross reference - brain development>cognitive>behavioral>language>dialect>family>culture

 

[S.A.M.]

No! dont have to!

Oh and why not? Scientific curiositically speaking?

 

[sniffy]

Faith:

Identify language of word>locate geographical region or spread of language spoken>research history searching for early references to word "dude">cross reference the methodology of the lexographer

or another angle for investigative research -brain development>language development>local dialect>family>culture

to relate to evolution cross reference - brain development>cognitive>behavioral>language>dialect>family>culture

 

[S.A.M.]

Identify language of word>locate geographical region or spread of language spoken>research history searching for early references to word "dude">cross reference the methodology of the lexographer

or another angle for investigative research -brain development>language development>local dialect>family>culture

to relate to evolution cross reference - brain development>cognitive>behavioral>language>dialect>family>culture

The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:
* Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
* Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)
* Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypotheses and theories)
* Experiments (tests of all of the above)

These are all observations (or at a stretch, correlations).

Where is the test of validity/falsifiability?

Can you predict the outcome of this meme as you can a gene?

 

[S.A.M.]

Go for it. I'd like to see at least one paragraph.

Sure. Still researching.

But I'd rather show it to someone I know can see both sides of an argument.

You are merely a waste of time and effort.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, Im not referring to Dawkings. Im referring to your agnostic butt.
How did you miss that? :bugeye:

Perhaps because your writing routinely lacks precision, and as such requires interpretation to understand your point(s). On this occasion, even knowing the target of your observations, your remarks make little sense.

 

[imaplanck.]

Sure. Still researching.

But I'd rather show it to someone I know can see both sides of an argument.

You are merely a waste of time and effort.

No you would rather show it to somone who licks your pretty little ass.

 

[S.A.M.]

No you would rather show it to somone who licks your pretty little ass.

Is this me or Ophiolite?

Whose butt are you obsessing on here?

edit: I see you added the quote.

If you look at my prodigious output, you'll see ass licking is a separate and distinct pastime for me, not to be confused with my convictions.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Is a meme (as a unit of cultural information) equal to a gene (as a unit of heredity)?
No.

Can one use scientific arguments to prove or disprove memetic viruses? the transmission of memes? the cumulative selection process of memes?
depends if you in need of scientific proof or religious one.

I would also like you to define a meme, its discrete unit and how you would assess for it.
Memes suck.

Using a scientific method.
Description is scientific method.

 

[imaplanck.]

Perhaps because your writing routinely lacks precision, and as such requires interpretation to understand your point(s). On this occasion, even knowing the target of your observations, your remarks make little sense.

Well I dont attempt to make sense to every retard, just to those that can project a description onto an unbiased array of subjects and choose the most likely intended contingent.

Do you pray, by the way?

 

[S.A.M.]

Is a meme (as a unit of cultural information) equal to a gene (as a unit of heredity)?
No.

Can one use scientific arguments to prove or disprove memetic viruses? the transmission of memes? the cumulative selection process of memes?
depends if you in need of scientific proof or religious one.

I would also like you to define a meme, its discrete unit and how you would assess for it.
Memes suck.

Using a scientific method.
Description is scientific method.

Thanks spurious.

I've been reading up on evolution and on Dawkins.

I'm puzzled as to why there is no line between science and opinion (or conclusions and theory) in much of his polemic.

Regardless of theism or atheism, what do you think of his practice of using a theory (meme) as a genetic analogy to explain everything under the sun?

Do you think description is always scientific?

I mean when I am differentiating NIH 3T3L1 cells an 80% confluence as judged by me is subjective as compared to when judged by someone other (since it is visual).

But would a poem describing the qualities of a lover be science?

 

[sniffy]

These are all observations (or at a stretch, correlations).

Where is the test of validity/falsifiability?

Can you predict the outcome of this meme as you can a gene?

Strange how your goalposts keep widening. First you ask whether something can be discussed scientifically. Then you ask how something might be discussed scientifically. Then you ask me to prove something scientifically on an internet 'science' chat room. Come into my laboratory and then I'll prove it. In the memetime why don't you prove scientifically that "curiositically" is an actual word.

The development of language directly correlates to brain development. So?

Science is based on observations. If I observe/study the usage of the word "dude" for all it's current meaning then yes I would be able to set up a test which might predict future usage:
I predict that the word "dude" means either a), b) or c)
If I observe any additional interpretations of the word "dude" against these prerecorded results I would test again to see whether or not this was an anomaly. I might even challenge other scientists to replicate my tests and then compare results. That's science.

Now that is your first paragraphs written would you like me to write the rest of the book for you?

 

[imaplanck.]

Is this me or Ophiolite?

Whose butt are you obsessing on here?



.

I doubt Ophs butt has been pretty in decades. He posted quickly before I posted the reply to your post.

 

[S.A.M.]

Strange how your goalposts keep widening. First you ask whether something can be discussed scientifically. Then you ask how something might be discussed scientifically. Then you ask me to prove something scientifically on an internet 'science' chat room. Come into my laboratory and then I'll prove it. In the memetime why don't you prove scientifically that "curiositically" is an actual word.

The development of language directly correlates to brain development. So?

Science is based on observations. If I observe/study the usage of the word "dude" for all it's current meaning then yes I would be able to set up a test which might predict future usage:
I predict that the word "dude" means either a), b) or c)
If I observe any additional interpretations of the word "dude" against these prerecorded results I would test again to see whether or not this was an anomaly. I might even challenge other scientists to replicate my tests and then compare results. That's science.

Now that is your first paragraphs written would you like me to write the rest of the book for you?

Sure science is based on observations. So apparently is pseudoscience.

But without experimental evidence, they are merely anecdotal.

One does not consider observations, musings, intuition, deductions, hypotheses and theories to be science unless they can be experimentally proved and replicated under controlled conditions or replicated by several parties under similar conditions.

I'm merely surprised that a theory would gain popularity in the scientific community due to emotional appeal rather than rational thinking.

As for the word its just been invented. A mutation of the meme. Copyright addressed to me.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you pray by the way?

Only in instances where it appears my life is in imminent danger. Why would you ask? Are you tired of being the butt of butt jokes?
Or, did you mean to ask if I pray by the wayside?
Or, do I prey, by the way?
Or,,,,,,,,,,

Sam, The meme concept is clever, but likely too clever for its own good. It represents everything that is wrong with Dawkins: conjecture dressed up in the robes of well founded theory, but underneath as naked as the Emperor in his new clothes.

Strange how your goalposts keep widening. First you ask whether something can be discussed scientifically. Then you ask how something might be discussed scientifically. Then you ask me to prove something scientifically on an internet 'science' chat room.

Strange how you are upset by the normal progression of a discussion, wherever that is held: the pub, an internet chat room, or a laboratory. Sam is seeking information (as far as I can see) not trying to win an argument. Were it the latter the mobile goalpost accusation might have some validity.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam, The meme concept is clever, but likely too clever for its own good. It represents everything that is wrong with Dawkins: conjecture dressed up in the robes of well founded theory, but underneath as naked as the Emperor in his new clothes.

I admit its incredibly attractive but as you said, shed of all the window dressing, its only a concept, nothing more. I have ideas like this every week when we brainstorm in our lab sessions. My advisor has to constantly say "Earth to Sam" to bring me back!

Maybe I should write books instead of practising science!

 

[imaplanck.]

do I prey, by the way?

Yes, I just wanted to find out if you actively participate in worship.
Hey! Dont call the grammar police on me, will you? O.K. I dont always take due care in my puntuation, but I'm sure I could find mistakes in yours too.

 

[sniffy]

A scientific theory is a scientific theory. Some scientific theories proved to be correct years, even centuries after they were created (planets orbiting the sun, earth round not flat, etc) because the theorists lacked the necessary tools to provide the proof.

A philosophical theory is a philosophical theory also open to rigorous testing by argument and debate.

Perhaps the scientific community is becoming a little emotional. Perhaps because of the very real threat posed by those emotionally connected to religion in its various guises. Once upon a time as mentioned previously scientists were burned at the stake for daring to question musings, intuition and other bible stories.

 

[baumgarten]

I'm merely surprised that a theory would gain popularity in the scientific community due to emotional appeal rather than rational thinking.

It is a disturbing trend in the scientific community. An upcoming article in the New Yorker talks about String Theory and how it has caused a similar situation among physicists.

Perhaps a falsifiable prediction can be inferred from meme theory. From what little I've read of it, the theory appears to suggest that a meme is a discrete object that exists independent of the human mind and whose device of proliferation is also independent of human behavior. Is this an accurate impression?

In such a case, the mechanism of reproduction (and I suppose the meme itself) should be discernible from ordinary human behavior as described by current psychological and sociological theories. Is that the case with meme theory? If not, I think the most that can be said about it is that it is a fashionable synonym for fad.

 

[S.A.M.]

It is a disturbing trend in the scientific community. An upcoming article in the New Yorker talks about String Theory and how it has caused a similar situation among physicists.

Perhaps a falsifiable prediction can be inferred from meme theory. From what little I've read of it, the theory appears to suggest that a meme is a discrete object that exists independent of the human mind and whose device of proliferation is also independent of human behavior. Is this an accurate impression?

In such a case, the mechanism of reproduction (and I suppose the meme itself) should be discernible from ordinary human behavior as described by current psychological and sociological theories. Is that the case with meme theory? If not, I think the most that can be said about it is that it is a fashionable synonym for fad.

Yes I am disturbed too.

There seems to be a lack of rigor in the practice of science today.

Popular science appears to supercede laborious experimentation.

Negative results have become unfashionable and appear to hamper funding.

The labour of previous scientists which survived and was acceptable chiefly due to their dedication to the process of science rather than the acceptability of their theories in the period it was founded seems to have escaped all those who appear to embrace popular concepts without subjecting them to a similar scrutiny.

It's a shame.

edit: from what I understand in The Selfish Gene (an excellent read, BTW), a meme is a unit of cultural information. So your definition seems right.