Arguments for or against Memes

**Kiljan Arslan** · March 23, 2008, 10:37 PM

I want to know what is the proof for and against Dawkins Theory of Memes.

Is there proof that they exist, or is it just a theory?

**Simetrical** · March 24, 2008, 10:26 AM

Well, the statement of the theory of memes is basically "Ideas propagate with modifications based on how much people like them." That's kind of straightforward: it's true. Since that's a form of descent with modification, you're immediately and inescapably led to the fact that ideas (memes) will undergo evolution. Any student of urban legends could tell you that.

The issue is addressing all this scientifically, which isn't yet widely done, or if it is it's not called memetics. Specifically, what kinds of things will increase the chances of people spreading ideas, and which will decrease them? How could these tendencies be manipulated? Those are questions very familiar to, for instance, propagandists, as well as many other groups: missionaries, political advocacy groups, and so on. Whether they're amenable to nice scientific answers with concrete applications remains up for debate.

**Cluny the Scourge** · March 24, 2008, 11:29 AM

Is this even properly called 'science'? Memes are a philosophical construct - a way of thinking about the anthropological side of ideas and their cultural dissemination. When I think of 'science' I think of measurable, detectable physical phenomena.

**Simetrical** · March 24, 2008, 03:44 PM

At most it's a social science.

**Kiljan Arslan** · March 25, 2008, 03:22 AM

So basicley Dawkins Biology isn't Biology?

(Would explain how he didn't have the balls to attack SJG till after he died.)

**ThiudareiksGunthigg** · March 25, 2008, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by Kiljan Arslan

So basicley Dawkins Biology isn't Biology?

Er, no - his work in biology has nothing to do with his concept of memes. And he's never said that the concept is a scientific one.

(Would explain how he didn't have the balls to attack SJG till after he died.)

Dawkins has never "attacked" Gould as a person and openly argued against Gould's punctuated equilibrium idea many times before Gould died.

**Kiljan Arslan** · March 25, 2008, 06:10 AM

Sorry dI really don't like Dawkins kinda because he acts like an arrorgant prick. Just like the head of New life Church.

**ThiudareiksGunthigg** · March 25, 2008, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Kiljan Arslan

Sorry dI really don't like Dawkins kinda because he acts like an arrorgant prick. Just like the head of New life Church.

I agree with him on some things and not on others. And I can see how people can find his public persona abrasive (apparently he's a charming gentleman in person). I also don't agree with many aspects of his brand of evangelical atheism. But I do find people's dislike of him/his persona lead them to say things about him that are untrue, which isn't really fair.

**~~removeduser_426582376423734~~** · March 25, 2008, 07:37 PM

I'd hate him with a passion if I didn't agree with him so much.

**Kiljan Arslan** · March 27, 2008, 05:16 PM

Shyam it's to bad we don't have a quotes thread anymore because that's quote worthy.

**TheKwas** · March 31, 2008, 12:17 AM

Irregardless of how much you dislike an individuals public personality, you should really know the facts before you start denouncing his science and scientific conduct. Newton is universally considered a massive prick, but yet his intellectual contributions to society are still universally praised.

**sephodwyrm** · April 02, 2008, 12:57 PM

a massive prick

It is a pre-requisite to greatness.

I doubt if the OP had read any of the books by Dawkins. As a scientist I have to say that they're very well written for laymen and should be a required reading for high school biology students.