From 'The Fallacy of Memetics':
Quote:
|
...the meme concept is bad science. It is the revival of the discredited theory of Lamarck in a new form. Because people will no longer believe that learnt behaviours can be actually embedded in our genes, we're now told that the development of human societies can be explained by a hybrid of DNA and memes. Yet, like the unconscious in psychoanalysis or utility in neo- classical economics, the concept of memes is completely unprovable. No one has ever seen a meme. You cannot examine one under a microscope. You cannot measure its impact on the social world. Lacking any credible scientific evidence, acceptance of the meme theory can only be a pure act of faith. Yet, on this flimsy assertion, we're called upon to reject all previous research into the development of human societies. Although social science may not appear as positivist as biology, at least many people working in this field have recognised the fundamental specificity of the human species. Unlike other animals, we not only possess consciousness, but also are capable of acting collectively to change our own circumstances.
|
Read the full essay at
http://tinyurl.com/3bb25a. It starts about halfway down the page, which is published by the Hypermedia Research Centre at the University of Westminster.
Whilst the essay does no favours to my own faith position, it does point out the bizarre situation arch-memeticist Richard Dawkind finds himself in, spending a lifetime propounding atheism over faith, before coming up with a theory which is, in fact, a statement of faith.
I query the use of the word 'faith' in Blue's post because I am curious where he, and others, draw the line. When is faith appropriate, and when is it not? Is it appropriate for Dawkins to push a theory that is, when you get down to it, 'merely' a statement of faith?