RE: virus: Theory....

Brett Lane Robertson (
Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:59:02 -0500

>Well, a philosopher would concur....
>A theory is simply that which a scientifically-bound experiment would
>falsify or verify.
>So- if you have a theory, you should also provide the details of the
>experiment to prove it.
>Thus my argument against the theory of the meme- where's the experiments?
>A conjecture does not require an experiment- most of philosophy resides
>The 'thought' experiments of the physicists are carefully constructed
>ideas of experiments. There's a good bit of philosophy there....
>Once the conjectures of the meme seen here and abouts are distilled to
>theories with experiments attached- then memetics will start on the road
>to scientific validity. I will not be content until these conditions are
>met. (Regardless that no-one cares....) Conjecture is fine for the
> Wade T. Smith


I assume that you are wise and that I am missing something. But, if science
wants to have something which is falsifiable, then theory cannot provide
that. When you say that a thought experiment provides an idea for the
scientific experiment, I see you saying that the philosopher must provide
for his own undoing. (The psychologist, by the way would be providing for
his own psychological "complex" such that there is unresolved
obsession--thought--and compulsion--experiment...assuming here that
"complex" is the same as a psychological disorder). So to be a scientist,
the philosopher/psychologist must negate himself to death. Here's the problem.



Monday is an awful way to spend one seventh of your life.