Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
From 'The Fallacy of Memetics':
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? |
iv not yet read the essay or for that matter looked up the relationships of HyperMedia Research so cant really comment to much there,but i do have a problem with this part at least
"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. "
perhaps im misunderstanding the context, but it seems they are trying to imply that humans are
the only animals that can and do this, thats wrong...., and can be seen by anyone that cares to look at the other inhabitants of this world, not least..., the very apes we are said to come/evolved from, and show all the hopes/weaknesses and actions we possess, and many other creatures living here too.