Religion as a Meme

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i agree. my texts are repleat with scientific inqueries into the nature of things, how they work and why. given the tools that they had to work with, there are some pretty astounding conclusions but they always give rise to a spiritual understanding as well. in the world view of ancient China, when you investigated why a flower was blooming, you were investingate the very nature of the universe

This reminds me of something that John Muir, an early conservationist and friend of Yosemite Valley, said (and this is just a paraphrase, as I don't have the quotation in front of me, but the "thread" imagery is his): If you pull on any thread in the universe, you will find that everything is connected to everything else.

That is one of my favorite thoughts, and something I believe to be true.

[juantoo3]

I love your attitude, little miss!

You have posted some great things to consider. I can't wait to return when I have a moment...thanks!

[Phi]

Only in very recent times have huge breakthroughs in science been made because some scientists followed the lines until they curved (8 turned sideways), thereby becoming immunized to linear science by moving on to curvilinear science. Fortunately they are being heard by astonished other linear scientists, creating a new and more commensal meme.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, LittleMissAttitude! BTW, have you made it to Italy yet?

Which brings us to juantoo3's questions about whether or not science is a religion. I tend to believe that science is very much like a religion, if not being an actual religion in and of itself. The point that juantoo3 makes about the boost to believers' egos by telling them they are chosen is very well illustrated by the position of the Brights. I do think that Thomas Kuhn's ideas about paradigm shifts in science also contribute to the idea that the scientific establishment operates in some ways very similarly to many religious institutions.

I want to begin by thanking you heartily for your contributions to this thread!

May I presume you are referring to Kuhn's work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? I was struggling a while back with a paper comparing science to religion, and one of my professors suggested this work. I found it to be a great resource in considering certain elements for the comparison, such as the established hierarchy and chain of command, the attitudes towards change or modification of entrenched belief systems, and the inordinate sway certain positions of authority hold in framing the acceptable thoughts of adherents. What I found missing is the historic continuum that forms the basis of the scientific community (or congregation, as it were). Science, in the sense of laboratory experimentation, often in secrecy, stems from the alchemy of the Middle Ages. Many ascribe this pursuit to "pagans", and it seems to have been generally frowned upon by the political (read: Church) establishment, with the notable exception of when that endeavor could be used to enlarge the Church coffers. If the alchemist was willing to turn base metals into gold, ostensibly with the "philosopher's stone", in order to increase the Church's net worth, then they were encouraged in their otherwise prohibited practices. With the Renaissance and the power shift that eroded the Church's influence, the broadening of the minds of the people in general, and the rise of non-Church thinking, the alchemists shifted their alliances somewhat and eventually began calling themselves scientists. My understanding is crude and cursory, but there are a number of intriguing things in history that lead me to this conclusion. For example, the philosopher's stone is traditionally thought of as turning base metals into gold in Western history, but my understanding of Eastern alchemical history is that the equivalent to the philosopher's stone imparted immortal life. Is it mere coincidence then that Columbus and other early Western explorers set sail in the name of the King (and Queen) and with the full blessing and knowledge of the Church for the East in the search for gold and the fountain of youth? Further, if there were nothing to be gained from a frivolous pursuit such as transmutation of metals, why were so many "kingdoms" so actively involved for so many centuries, if there were no genuine motivation to do so? It would seem a rather costly indulgence to keep so many alchemists on the kingdom's payroll if they were not producing as intended. At a time when "scientific" inquiry was so generally dismissed in the West (in the East it continued, thankfully) as a challenge to sanctioned thinking, the governmental authorities including church and state did pursue alchemy, unofficially and covertly. In a sense, this was the "Cold War" of the Middle Ages in Europe. (or maybe "Gold War"? )

I also believe that the general hostility of the scientific establishment to "popularizers" - those who write about science in a way that demystifies it for the layperson - mimics the world of religion in that it violates the sort of priesthood of scientists (initiates) who wish to hold to themseleves secrets they believe that nonscientists (the general public) are not equipped to fully understand and, anyway, are not really entitled to know. Goodness knows that Carl Sagan and Stepehn Jay Gould were both looked down on by their non-popularizing colleagues.

Indeed! And yet, if it were not for the "evangelical" popularizers, where would the fresh batches of new recruits come from? Perhaps Asimov and Clarke were not scientists per se (I am not certain that either of them were ever actively employed as a scientist), yet without their novels and appeal to the masses, someone like me would be largely lost in and to the field of science. Perhaps that popularity is at a cost, yet who do the public recognize and relate to? I can't help but think, "a prophet is without honor in his own country."

An aside, I recently purchased "Rocks of Ages", and I intend to get a start on it soon. I wanted to read some of Gould's work, and that was the first piece I saw that I could afford that intrigued me.

It seems to me that Dawkins use of memes to make religion seem an artifact of humans' biolgoical existence is in the great tradition of sociobiology that reduces everything to physics and chemistry.

It seems a distinction between hard and soft science is overlooked here. I am not attributing that specifically to you, LittleMissAttitude, rather I attribute it to Dawkins, at least in this regard. Biology is arguably a hard science, while sociology is not. To attribute social interactions within a group of people to chemistry and physics would be in essence an ability to predict an outcome with a great degree of certainty, something anthropologists such as Claude Levi-Strauss lament and refute. Sociology and anthropology can only be studied in generalities, as there are too many exceptions to be able to make accurate and certain predictions.

Am I mistaken in thinking that this statement makes the assumption that culture is, at bottom, biological?

I have heard a similar argument before elsewhere. I didn't fully grasp the implications, and perhaps I still don't, but it seems in this context to make better sense. Yet I am puzzled, if culture were fully an extension of biology, would the various cultures not be more fully alike and diverging? I suppose one could argue that the structural components are sufficiently alike; that is, each culture has a language, government, religion, currency, arguably art, etc. But if we were all growing out of a common ancestry, would we not seemingly be becoming more diverse according to evolutionary argument? Yet it seems to me the reality in practice is that the cultures of the world have stabilized with a few predominant cultures with many subsets of each, and as we interact more through the centuries the cultures are becoming more homogenous, contrary I would think to evolutionary supposition. The advent of global business serves as a catalyst to even further homogenize cultures.

I've always been fascinated with the interplay between science and religion. I just hope I haven't overstepped the bounds of the discussion.

I can't speak for any others, but I welcome your input to this discussion. I too, have had a long interest in the similarities between science and religion.

Just as a side note, I find it interesting that while religion can be just as hostile to science as science is to religion (or at least scientists and theologians sometimes take these positions), this is not always the case. For example, I've read some interesting work by John Polkinghorn, a physicist in his first career who became an Anglican clergyman and theologian, who has done some very interesting work in the area of showing that science and religion do, in fact, have lots of things to say to each other, and definitely do not necessarily contradict each other. I wonder where he would come down on the subject of memes, in religion and in science.

I have not seen the subject of memes addressed by any religionists yet. I have seen a bit of science conducted by men who also had a faith. One might argue that they would have an agenda, but then it could be argued that a man of no faith too has an agenda. True science would be conducted by an individual who can set his predilections aside to follow where the evidences lead. Again in the grand tradition set forth by religion, this is a wonderful moral and ethical virtue to strive for, but it is seldom fully attained in actual practice. Further, these men who attempt to correlate science with religion typically end up being lambasted from both sides. As a result, some of these well meaning people end up pretty callous in their attitudes, which is regrettable.

Dr. Carl Baugh is the founder and director of an interesting museum in Glen Rose, Texas. He and his team have uncovered some anomalous fossils that challenge the traditional evolutionary timeline. It could be argued that they have interpreted their data with their preconceived bias, yet the establishment science chooses instead to ignore the "solid" evidence. Kind of like one religion dissing another. Glenn R. Morton is another who has looked at young earth creationism, and came away with a challenge to his faith by the geological facts. Yet he has managed to remain faithful. I want to read more of his work, to this point I have only read excerpts, but he has looked into the geological sciences in comparison with traditional Biblical accounts. I come away from his interpretations reinforced in my understanding that the six "days" of Genesis were not literal days. The flood of Noah remains a bit more problematic in my mind, yet I have long thought that it was more localized than is traditionally taught, however, I am inclined to believe it upset the topography of the planet more thoroughly than either science or religion is willing to concede. (From here I could easily digress into discussions of Atlantis.) I just read an interesting postulation of Morton's equating Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" with a random chance model called "Sierpinski's gasket". Quite interesting.
Vajradhara might find it interesting, it can be found at:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/god-evol.htm

This reminds me of something that John Muir, an early conservationist and friend of Yosemite Valley, said (and this is just a paraphrase, as I don't have the quotation in front of me, but the "thread" imagery is his): If you pull on any thread in the universe, you will find that everything is connected to everything else.

I haven't made it to Yosemite yet. I did take the opportunity a few years back when I was visiting family to see the Sequoias. Breathtakingly gorgeous! I believe it was Muir who also said something like "Bears are made of the same dust as we, and breathe the same air, and drink the same waters."

[Phi]

And many are the Saganites
Who bow their bright mindsouls in full submission
To priests of science and Saint Carl
Those holy priests who have a bit, and only that, of every Discipline
While labouring as the simpleminded monk in robes of white
In hallowed and ascetic rooms
Slow-inking sacred scripts in obscure languages
Or chanting prayerful notes aloud
With painstaking effort of his clear and holy mind.
And follows his Orthodoxy step by slow and studied step
And flogs himself religiously should one small sin of error or omission
Desecrate the work of any day.
And many of the faithful stand in awe
And sing aloud of Revelations of the
Sacred and Eternal Truths
of Space and Time and Cosmos
With scarce comprehension
Singing the Latin of the Priests
Rather than their own and native tongue.
Their prophets are renowned for clear and startling utterance
In writings that they must put forth or die
And well they know that they are watched for any errant word
required by holy seat to keep the right to seek the Truth
in hallowed and Saintly halls of knowledge.
For any word that might be doom for any false-prophet in an ancient day.
And all these great and holy men alone among themselves
can say to one another that theories are theories and postualtes are postulates and not the word of the Omnipotent Cosmos
And chuckle with their brothers over poor misguided fools
Not erudite enough to comprehend but left to
Blindest faith.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!
I don't mind being called juan, or juantoo, or most anything polite. Call me most anything except late for dinner. It is merely a screen name to me, a nom de plume if you will.

Buddhism, as a linga franca, operates on two levels.. that of the empirical and that of the intuitive. i would hazard that most Buddhists would conceed that the inutitive is always subject to being deluded whilst the empirical is always subject to the interpetation of our deluded senses. so, i would have to say that yes, most Buddhists would conceed that they may be incorrect in their beliefs.

It seems I have already had this discussion elsewhere at this forum, so I am inclined to agree in principle even applied to my own faith. For what it is worth, I am not so arrogant as to think my Christianity is the only road, or possibly even the best road, but it is the road I know, love and live by.

the Buddhas teachings are like rafts that are to be abanonded once we cross the river.. if we keep carrying them they create more problems for us. so in this sense we cannot be dogmatic about our views either. this doesn't prevent some people from becoming so

I know you have referred to this many times across several boards, and I suppose some thick-headed people like me need to see this in the various contexts to make sense of it. I am not sure I am fully aware of what you mean by "abandoning", is this a reference to the different schools or trains of thought? In effect, over several lifetimes, one might gravitate, say from Paganism through Christianity ultimately to Buddhism? Or perhaps the other way around? I confess a great deal of ignorance when it comes to Buddhist teachings, I have learned far more from you here than everywhere else in my existence combined to this point. And I still feel like a kindergartner in this regard, particularly when it appears you have more familiarity with my religion than I do with yours. Please forgive my ignorance. And please understand, with absolutely no disrespect intended, reincarnation is not my belief. I have seen those that lead their lives thinking, "well, if I screw up this life, I'll just make up for it in the next life," using such an attitude as a crutch and enabler for unwise decisions and actions. I am more apt to think that if I only get one chance, then I am more likely to do the best I can with it. I suppose the modified Pascal's wager is that if there is another lifetime in this realm, then I would more likely elevate by virtue of better Karma, yes?

Science is agnostic about God and it seems to me that this is simply a reflection of their own bias on the issue.

I agree. I think it stems as much from a political bias from the formal foundation of science as an enterprise unto itself as much as from the logically/philosophically unanswerable question of the "existence of God." If I understand you correctly, Buddhism does not recognize a so-called "person" of God, merely a universal IS of which all are a part and to which all must return. That roughly equates with my perception of God. In effect then, GOD IS. Not yelling, just my way of expounding a concept I have long been developing in my mind and heart, which seems in my mind to equate very closely with what I have seen you expound.

it is an interesting concept, these memes, and the implications are pretty enormous. i reserve my right to determine if this is a good theory until i become infected by the meme that says that memes are good

I hadn't fully grasped the implications of memes until this thread began unfolding, I am certain there are matters I have yet to consider. Even in researching advertising psychology and the attendant behaviorist school, I began as a skeptic and did so in order to better understand how we are subliminally and subconsciously swayed in our thinking processes. We are led to believe certain things and have no clue as to why we believe them. This is not endemic only to religion, it has become a cultural thing (at least for Americans, and I suspect for the developed world, and increasingly for the rest as business becomes evermore global). Ten-second sound bites and bumper sticker slogans are sufficient reasoning for people who have no desire (or ability?) to reason further for themselves. As a business major, I have to reconcile the good attributes of business from the bad, and I see subliminal manipulation as a bad thing. And yet, by a different process but no less subliminal manipulation, is how we are "trained" in morality. A quandary, that.

you've heard it said, i'm sure, that a picture is worth a thousand words. have you really analyzed why that is? Buddhist psychology has been doing that for nearly 2500 years. we've got some interesting ideas about this... one of them is that we think in symbols and pictures which we then must express in words. there is alot lost in the translation this also explains why reality cannot be expressed in language or ideas, it transcends them all, yet exists nonetheless, free of them all.

This is the point I was most looking forward to addressing. Thought pictures. I know you opened a different thread some time ago on symbols, and at that time and with no context I was at a loss for a meaningful contribution. Young children think in pictures. From this I would conclude that grown people with limited verbal skills would retain thought pictures. Even written language stems from symbolism. Some of the best wisdom teachings I have encountered use parables to paint symbolic thought pictures (case in point is the joke I posted on the humor thread about the little bird). I have often used symbolic parable in conveying a point, which in my estimation seems to do the job much more effectively than scholarly regurgitation ad naseum. It drives the point home more effectively. Of course, I have also had scholars chastise me for using such methods, I suspect because they were not familiar with the concept. Because different people learn better in different ways, there are some that are no longer fully receptive to thought pictures as a means of communicating, they feel it is somehow beneath them.
There are other scholars, of an entirely different kind, that are keen to symbolism. Linguists, in particular, seem better adept at such, as are those deeply immersed in certain religious texts. And then there are dreams and visions (including daydreams), perhaps the quintessential thought pictures. May I presume that what you imply equates very much with controlled dreams, that is, daydreams? Or am I to presume you imply the thought pictures generated from the teaching of a parable? Both? Neither?

my texts are repleat with scientific inqueries into the nature of things, how they work and why. given the tools that they had to work with, there are some pretty astounding conclusions but they always give rise to a spiritual understanding as well. in the world view of ancient China, when you investigated why a flower was blooming, you were investingate the very nature of the universe

By "my texts", may I presume Buddhist texts? This would explain the compatibility with science in general terms. I suspect this is a minor divergence in formal science from its roots in alchemy, in that (Western) alchemy (my understanding) did take other forces and influences of nature into account, not unlike what I see promulgated on the alternative religion boards concerning Wicca. Science, on the other hand, seems to have taken upon itself to isolate as much as possible any given artifact from its connection in and to its surroundings. This leads, in my mind, to specialization, which while not a bad thing in and of itself, tends to dismiss in extreme circumstances the relevance of an artifact to its surroundings. An artifact remains attached only if there is an obvious cause or effect to another artifact. This is very narrow-minded in my view. While science distanced itself for a long time in this manner, slowly I see a shift developing that is in some aspects reuniting these concurrent and interrelated artifacts. David Suzuki addressed some of this in a PBS show awhile back, I believe it was called "Sacred Balance."
It is a slow process, in my estimation, brought on by the politics of the competing specialties that have emerged in science. The hard sciences hold themselves to be above the soft sciences, and each specialty competes for authority among the others. Cooperation appears to not be an intrinsic aspect of human social interaction, except in moments of crisis. More and more I am inclined to see competition as a natural state of being among humans.
Some of this too, is aggravated by the Political Government, who tend to pull strings and manipulate research in accord with what is believed expedient for a given moment in history.

Do you see thought pictures as memes? Or do you see memes as manipulating (developing) thought pictures? Are memes inherently bad, or like so many other things, only used for bad purposes? Is exposure to images of anti-social and anti-moral behavior a meme, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts? Does exposure to violence create a desire for violence, or at least a callous or indifferent attitude towards it?

How is it that Buddhism is anti-meme (or perhaps better stated, self-canceling)? Are well trained Buddhists largely immune from the influence of memes? Immune from subliminal persuasion, including perhaps morality? While I believe I see the distinction between Karmic "turnaround" (I think this equates roughly with Christian "repentence") and "hard-wiring", at least as you have postulated, I am failing to see the relevance to memes. Surely even a Buddhist can be persuaded, and if a Buddhist can be persuaded consciously, surely they can be persuaded unconsciously?

"To be forewarned is to be forearmed," being aware of subliminal influence is "half of the battle" as they say. I find myself better able to read between the lines since becoming aware of the methods employed, yet I still fall victim in matters of my own tastes and preferences, even though I now can see it as it happens. It is fascinating to me, being able to watch the process as it unfolds in my own mind and will.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Phi, and welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by Phi

And many are the Saganites
Who bow their bright mindsouls in full submission
To priests of science and Saint Carl
Those holy priests who have a bit, and only that, of every Discipline
While labouring as the simpleminded monk in robes of white
In hallowed and ascetic rooms
Slow-inking sacred scripts in obscure languages
Or chanting prayerful notes aloud
With painstaking effort of his clear and holy mind.
And follows his Orthodoxy step by slow and studied step
And flogs himself religiously should one small sin of error or omission
Desecrate the work of any day.
And many of the faithful stand in awe
And sing aloud of Revelations of the
Sacred and Eternal Truths
of Space and Time and Cosmos
With scarce comprehension
Singing the Latin of the Priests
Rather than their own and native tongue.
Their prophets are renowned for clear and startling utterance
In writings that they must put forth or die
And well they know that they are watched for any errant word
required by holy seat to keep the right to seek the Truth
in hallowed and Saintly halls of knowledge.
For any word that might be doom for any false-prophet in an ancient day.
And all these great and holy men alone among themselves
can say to one another that theories are theories and postualtes are postulates and not the word of the Omnipotent Cosmos
And chuckle with their brothers over poor misguided fools
Not erudite enough to comprehend but left to
Blindest faith.

This is funny, where is it from?

[Phi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Phi, and welcome to CR!
This is funny, where is it from?

ME. And I really do know whereof I speak, as I have studied and then worked
in those hallowed halls in my robes of white for many years.

[juantoo3]

I hoped your response would be something like that!

May I quote it elsewhere? And to whom should I give credit?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,

crikey! just a few questions, eh?

when we Buddhists talk about "abandoning the raft" we are meaning several different things. what the Buddha taught are called "dharmas". the word "dharma" comes from the root word Dhri and means "to cling" so, Dharmas are things that we cling to. be they "truth", "teachings" or others. so... what we really mean when we say that we abandon the raft is that we leave behind the teachings as well.

the teachings are used to help us cross to the other shore, that of Nirvana, for wont of a better term, and once there, they no longer apply.

now... it is the position of my particular school that yes, something like that would happen... one would say, be a Christian and owning to various karmic factors and so forth, be reborn as a human who then, due to their merit of good deeds and so forth, may begin to practice the Dharma.

this gets to an area that can lead to conflict and confusion if not properly explained. i'll try to explain it the best that i can, however, i'm not very skilled at this sort of thing.

from my schools point of veiw, it is quite important to have faith. in fact, one needs to have faith that the path they are practicing is the "correct" path, to the exclusion of others. this has very practicle reasons behind it... most of which have to due with the nature of humans. humans, by and large, require a certain degree of certainity about things. especially one that can be as important as religion. thus, each religion expounds is path and praxis as the "only" path and praxis to inspire it's adherents, not, necessarily, to denegrate other traditions. from our view at any rate.

how does this relate? generally speaking, Buddhists are quite supportive of other religious traditions, as i'm sure you've heard me say more than once. it is our belief, however, that these are not "final" paths, they will all lead to rebirth and do not put an end to it. only the Buddhist path of the Mahayana can do this, according to our teachings.

reincarnation is not my belief either. Buddhists believe in rebirth, those that do at any rate. reincarnation implies that there is something permenant in the body that moves from being to being. this is tied to the theory of Atman in the Vedas and is something that Buddhism specifically refutes. rebirth is different in that it is an aspect of your consciousness that is reborn based on the influence of our karma. so, bearing this in mind, we Buddhist types, tend to be quite focused on the here and now, not the next life. as what we do here and now effects our next rebirth quite significantly.. of course, as there are multiple rebirths, you may lead a completely meritorious life but still have terrible things happen due to karma ripening from previous life times. karma, in its most basic sense, is described very much like a seed and the result of karma is it's fruit. if we plant a good seed and water it, we'll get good fruit. if we plant a bad seed and water it, we'll get bad fruit. when the causes and conditions are such, the fruit ripens, when the causes and conditions are not, no fruit appears.

you are correct, Buddhism does not have a "personal" conception of a Creator deity. there is a protestant theologian named Paul Tillich who says that "God is the ground of Being." if that were the definition used, i would say that a Buddhist wouldn't have much issue with the concept. however, what we will not accept (i'm speaking quite generally as there are many different types of folks) is attributing qualites to that which is beyond conception.

this is an especially important bit, in my opinion. Buddha was rather agnostic about a creator deity in general, however, specifically refuted the conception of a Creator Deity that is able to be conceputalized. in his day, this being was called Ishvara and was typcially described in language that would have a home in most protestant churches. all loving, merciful etc.

i whole heartedly agree with you. to take some simply bumper sticker sloganing to heart and in context... "kill your television." i was reading an essay by an economist the other day who was explaning the driving engine of the Capitalist system is the consumerism that is fueled and, perhaps, even created by mass media, especially the television. i'm not sure if he was advocating removing the televisions, however, that was certainly one of the points that he made, quite strongly i think.

i would say "both". it seems to be that the initial formation of a thought is self contained, a complete and seemless whole that appears in the mind as a freeform symbol. after the arising of the thought, we begin the process of analyzing it and seperating it into it's consituant parts.. discarding this and keeping that further refining the "broad idea" into "talking points" that we can easily convey.

i do marvel at, for instance, how music has the ability to convey so much information without words. i personally feel that its the evocative quality of music that allows this to happen... music, in some fashion, turns on the projector in our mind. though it's a poor analogy it may do for now.

actually, it's my Taoist texts that are more repleat with their inquries of a scientific nature. western alchemy and eastern alchemy are related but quite distinct. i'll admit that my western alchemy is confined to a few individuals and my knowledge of their praxis is rather limited. in the Eastern form of Alchemy, there were three main schools that arose, those of the literalits, that thought they could turn lead to gold, those of the philosophers that veiwed this as a metaphor for refining the self and those of the spiritualists, which veiwed it as a metaphor for refinding the dross of the mundane spirit into the gold of the immortal spirit.

it is very interesting to see how these two forms moved through their culture. in the West, it was Greek thought, and still is really, that gave rise to the science that we have today. in the East, specifically in China, it was Taoism that gave rise to the scientific endeavors and minds that we still find today. the Greek view of things is mechanistic and only very, very recently in the west, has this been shown to be inaccurate. the Chinese veiw of Li, or "organic pattern" seems to be a more accurate understanding of the nature of the universe, given the new experiments that we are now able to conduct... we are "proving" in our western way, what the East has held to be correct for over 2500 years

memes aren't bad or good, they simply are the method that thoughts are transferred to people. bacteria isn't good or bad, it just depends on where you happen to have some i would tend to think that memes are the vehicle by which ideas replicate themselves to others.

given my listing of Buddhism and things above, it is still a meme in the strictest sense... however, it is unique in that it seeks to rid itself of memes, even itself. Buddhists are regular folks too, so yes, we can be pursauded and influenced. however, if one gets to the heart of the Buddhist teaching.. we find that there is no "i" that is pursauded. this is, in my opinion, why Buddhism could be considered to be a 'meme clearing meme'.

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, LittleMissAttitude! BTW, have you made it to Italy yet?

Not yet. I guess I wasn't emphatic enough or something.

May I presume you are referring to Kuhn's work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"?

Yes, that is what I was referring to. I haven't read the whole thing, but his theory of paradigm change was instrumental in three our four classes I took at university, so I got a pretty good grounding in what he had to say. Thank you for your input on the history of science. I had never thought of lab science as we know it as growing out of alchemy, but certainly that makes sense.

I think the thing that really intrigues me about "establishment" science is their willingness to pick out whole areas of inquiry and just say, "We will not study that, and if someone is so impudent as to go ahead and do so, we will excommunicate them," which in the scientific field means withholding of approval for grants, blocking publication of even well-done studies, and generally dissing the offending scientist whenever possible. An interesting, if controversial, example of this is the UFO problem. There may or may not be something there. I think UFOs are an interesting subject, but I'm not what you'd call a "true believer" concerning them. But everything I have ever read indicates that ever since the Condon Report (which was quite flawed in a number of ways, including having the conclusion arrived at before the work was even done), mainstream, official science will not even look at the problem. That doesn't exactly seem very "objective" to me, which is the standard which science is always touting.

Perhaps Asimov and Clarke were not scientists per se (I am not certain that either of them were ever actively employed as a scientist), yet without their novels and appeal to the masses, someone like me would be largely lost in and to the field of science.

I'm not sure about Clarke's science qualifications, although I seem to recall him having some. As for Asimov, he was a scientist - I think he held a Ph.D. in chemistry from somewhere like Columbia University (but don't quote me; it's been a long time since I read his published journals). In fact, he taught on the university level, and has probably written more nonfiction than fiction, much of it on scientific subjects.

My point about popularizers is that they open the world of science up to whoever is interested, which I think is a good thing. Sagan especially got laughed at a lot for his manner - he did have a way of pontificating sometimes - but he was enthusiastic about his work, and about science in general, and that served to attract a lot of people to science. So did Gould's popular writings, even though they weren't always the easiest reading in the world. This, by the way, was one of the things I most enjoyed about reading him - he didn't seem to talk down to the reader. The problem the non-popularizers had with them was two-fold, I think. For one thing, they were simply jealous that they didn't receive the public adulation that those two did. The other aspect, as I said, was simply that these scientists felt that popularization let too many people into the temple, so to speak.

Biology is arguably a hard science, while sociology is not. To attribute social interactions within a group of people to chemistry and physics would be in essence an ability to predict an outcome with a great degree of certainty, something anthropologists such as Claude Levi-Strauss lament and refute. Sociology and anthropology can only be studied in generalities, as there are too many exceptions to be able to make accurate and certain predictions.

Funny thing about biology - the chemists and physicists I know consider biology to be a "soft" science. Not enough math in it for them, or something, to go along with the lesser amount of predictability. And you make a good point about anthropology and sociology (which I consider, by the way, to be really the same subject only approached from different perspectives; I've got a long justification for that which I won't go into here) - they don't lend themselves to replicability and accurate predictions. They really don't lend themselves readily to number crunching, and are much more anecdotal in nature. This is why I am uncomfortable with the idea of the "social sciences". The study of cultures is an art and a craft much more than it is a science, and to make it into too much of a science robs it of much of its ability and effectiveness.

I have not seen the subject of memes addressed by any religionists yet. I have seen a bit of science conducted by men who also had a faith. One might argue that they would have an agenda, but then it could be argued that a man of no faith too has an agenda.

Everyone has an agenda. That's just a fact of life. Surely Dawkins has a quite obvious agenda, don't you think. I doubt that most religionists would like the idea of memes, at least as that term is used by Dawkins. However, I can imagine that some might turn Dawkins's frame of reference back around on him and attribute scientific thinking to rampant memes.

Dr. Carl Baugh is the founder and director of an interesting museum in Glen Rose, Texas. He and his team have uncovered some anomalous fossils that challenge the traditional evolutionary timeline. It could be argued that they have interpreted their data with their preconceived bias, yet the establishment science chooses instead to ignore the "solid" evidence. Kind of like one religion dissing another.

I've read about these discoveries. Seemingly human and seemingly dinosaur footprints apparently in association in the same strata, right? My own opinion is that these probably have been interpreted by Baugh and others in light of their young-earth bias. But then, I don't have the expertise to determine that for sure, and I haven't seen their evidence in real life, so who am I to say that my evaluation is in any way definitive. However, I believe that these geofacts have been looked at by scientists and determined to be spurious. The problem with this example is that it is mostly an example of deuling biases.

I'm actually one who has no trouble reconciling some sort of creative force in the universe with the idea of an ancient earth and geolgoical and biological evolution. Which just means that believers in both a young earth and a convetionally scientific interpretation of an ancient earth often feel free to open fire on me. Still, there are those in the trenches who hold the same view as I do who also do not see a contradiction. I've read a good book that advocates this position, but I don't have ready access to it so I cannot give you the title and author right now. I'll see if I can dig it up and post it when I can.

Well, I've said more than enough for this post. Not sure I even covered all the points I wanted to, but you all can breathe a sigh of relief. I'm done for now.

Except to tell juan - you really need to visit Yosemite. It is a beautiful place.

[Phi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I hoped your response would be something like that!

May I quote it elsewhere? And to whom should I give credit?

I am Karen Roscoe.
Thanks for your laughter, it seems the verse accomplished for you what the meme theme in prose(above) could not. I love to play with words and subtle humor.

So, Please
permit me to persiflage with a perverse propensity to periphrasis in parlaying perfervid praise for your perspicacious perception, and pardon my passion for phrenetic phraseology.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Ms. Roscoe! I am very pleased to meet you! *extended hand in greeting*

Originally Posted by Phi

I am Karen Roscoe.
Thanks for your laughter, it seems the verse accomplished for you what the meme theme in prose(above) could not. I love to play with words and subtle humor.

I promise, your previous post was not ignored. Some moments in appreciation of humor are best relished in the awe of silence. In my experience anyway. But the poem was absolutely awesome!

So, Please
permit me to persiflage with a perverse propensity to periphrasis in parlaying perfervid praise for your perspicacious perception, and pardon my passion for phrenetic phraseology.

Please, proceed, post haste!

[littlemissattitude]

Phi...that was a great poem. It made me laugh, as well.

On a slightly more serious note, however, I would hope that someone turned on to science by Sagan or Gould or one of the other popularizers would go on to find out more and not just get caught up in their favorite scientist's particular orthodoxy. I followed both Sagan's and Gould's careers, but I certainly haven't swallowed their dogmas whole. Instead I went on to find out more about the things that interest me in science and have formed my own - albeit amateur - conclusions about the issues I first learned about from their work.

Of course, I've always been an independent thinker, not willing to take anyone's word for anything. Been that way ever since I leanred that my first grade teacher lied to us about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. I felt so betrayed. And despite the smiley face, I'm absolutely serious about that.

[juantoo3]

You know, on the subject of popularizers turning people on to science, I probably learned more from Bill Nye than I did in all of grade school. I was really disappointed when they ended his programs.