Re: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

Marie Foster (
Fri, 03 Oct 1997 12:49:29 -0700

Wade T.Smith wrote:
> >> >The reason I think it would be a good research item is that this is a
> >> >very inconsequential act. But because of its nature the media has been
> >> >instrumental in disseminating it. It is the association of the behavior
> >> >to the word that describes it that is interesting to me.
> >> >
> >> >I know that this is vague. One must keep some secrets.
> Sorry, Marie, but science does not keep secrets. Shamanism does, though.
> You objection to discussing this is rejected.
> ********************************
> Wade T. Smith
> ********************************

You are correct in criticizing the message. I regret the approach. I
have been trying to be brief. The problem I have with trying to come up
with legitimate research topics would be the need to isolate the
instance. And I do not know if that is even a clear explanation of the
problem I am having.

My interest in memes has been that it seems to approach what might be
called 'social science' in a more disciplined and scientifically
rigorous manner. And that in trying to identify something to study how
one limit scope to track that single instance?

Does this make sense?

I tend to be leary of the effect of much social science research on our
culture. I cite an example. Recently, the popular press has publicized
the percentage of DNA we share with other ape species. This research
got filtered by someone. I noticed this article. But my thinking
was... "Interesting... I wonder what percentage of DNA we share with
other mammals... with insects... with plants etc. If I remember
correctly, the differences are pretty small.

The thing I like about science is that experiments test assumptions.
But the more we seem to know the more even 'pure' research seems to
promote agendas.

After reading this I do not know if it is any clearer than my previous
post. Grant me some slack or not. As my son says... "whatever."

I remain,