Darth, I clicked through and there's a ton of reading there.
The first quotation is interesting, though;
"As of today memetics is very far from fulfilling the requirements of a science. But I think it is just a matter of time before most of these problems have been resolved."
So at the moment there's no real science in memes, but the hope (faith?) is that one day there will be. Is that hope blind or is it based on a reality not yet beheld?
I also clicked through to a Q&A on memetics and the first question on the list is;
"Is the memes' theory a scientific theory? That is, could we say it is an analogical theory - meant to arrive to a biological law similar to the genetic one - or a metaphoric theory - using the gene-theory as just an explicatory aid?"
So it seems I'm not alone in wondering about the science of memes.
The answer to this question is fascinating;
"First of all, let us look at the question. In general metaphor is used as being broader than analogy. In this way analogy seems to refer to a law in biology, and metaphor to an explanatory aid. I think it can be used as you please. In my opinion biology does not have many laws, and certainly no laws in the way physics has them. But aside from this, my efforts are not to arrive at any laws of biology. Memes are in the realm from behavior to thought so it depends how broad you take biology to be.
I think that in the common sense of the word, they are not in the realm of biology, since genetics has little to do with memes, apart for the fact that the things memes are in, are biological, and that parts of these things (things are organisms) can be determined by genes to a large or small extent to take up memes without too much interference by intentions.I think that the most positive way to look at it is that the memetic perspective, both the virus-metaphor, and the selective metaphor, can be an aid to understand otherwise difficult to understand phenomena. That would be more metaphoric I think. This does not mean that the theory about the structure of thought is very analogical to biological theory, especially the Darwinian theory. By the virus metaphor I mean the memetic perspective that Dawkins takes, where memes spread without much resistance.By the selective perspective I mean the perspective where there is a focus on selection of memes; people can and do resist ideas, especially when those ideas prescribe them to behave in ways they don't like, or if those ideas tell them to agree on morally wrong ideas, in their judgement."I don't claim to be intelligent enough to understand all of this. A couple of things do leap out at me, though. Firstly, memes are not in the realm of biology (which is one of the sciences, right?) but are actually a metaphor to explain an analogy. Am I on the right track? Secondly, memes are a metaphor that has two dimensions, the virus-metaphor and the selective metaphor. Again, I'm not claiming to fully understand this, but that seems like a dichotomy.So, if we are to believe memes, shouldn't they be scientifically proven and explained so that their function, purpose, definition and reality are absolutely conclusive. If there's any doubt as to what they are and how they work (even if they are just a metaphor, and it's amazing that a whole 'science' has sprung up around a metaphor) then surely the doubt would have to be filled in with faith. And faith is delusion, correct?
