Petter ([info]petter_haggholm) wrote,
@ 2006-12-07 13:34:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:essays

Evolution is science; science is evolution

It occurs to me that science, as a whole, is a process of memetic evolution. We could even borrow terminology from biological evolution: There are mutations and crossovers; the fittest survive—those most able to stand up to critical scrutiny … I think perhaps the largest difference is that while abiogenesis must be regarded as an uncommon event in nature (or at least, it is reasonable to assume that organic material that is now produced through some form of abiogenesis is consumed by extant, more advanced life forms), memetic abiogenesis—“anepistegenesis”?—is comparatively common. (Of course I do not mean that these ideas are spontaneous; they are properly derived from observation, but they have no memetic ancestors.)

Edit: It seems that Dr. Dawkins's adjective is memic, not memetic. Mea culpa.


(Post a new comment)


[info]wildmage
2006-12-09 09:51 pm UTC (link)
Hooray! Someone else talking about memetics for a change. \o/

What's the word "anepistegenesis" built of? Did you coin that yourself? Dictionary.com just shuffles its feet and meekly suggests if I'd not rather read about Ernst Jansz, and I wonder if it has a deeper meaning than memetic abiogenesis, one that I missed.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Anepistegenesis
[info]petter_haggholm
2006-12-09 11:00 pm UTC (link)
It's entirely my own, and I'm absurdly fond and proud of it. The intended meaning is creation [of knowledge from a state] without knowledge on the same model as abiogenesis (creation [of living matter from matter without] life). The roots are the negative a-, the Greek epistḗm(é), knowledge; as in for instance epistemology; and genesis: Origin, source. I'm not a linguist, but I think it pretty much makes sense…

(Upon double-checking the roots I used—I never looked up the episte- root, for instance—it even seems that all my components are Greek, so it's nice and consistent.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]renatus
2006-12-09 11:37 pm UTC (link)
... I think I would be interested in this, but there's too much jargon and not enough English and I can't really tell what you're saying. Rephrase?

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Translation
[info]petter_haggholm
2006-12-10 09:47 pm UTC (link)
Science is an evolution of ideas—evolution in exactly the same sense as biological evolutions. Within their environment—the human mind—they (certainly) mutate, they breed and exchange information (unpredictably), and they die out. When we normally talk about memes, dying out means being forgotten. In science, the death of an idea means that it has been proven false; or it could be a more gradual extinction where no conclusive proof can be produced, but a mounting pile of evidence, however weak its constituents, indicate more and more strongly that the idea is properly dead.

The main difference from biological evolution, I think—other than the environment and concrete mechanisms, obviously—is that ideas can arise pretty much spontaneously. Of course a scientific theory doesn't come from nowhere, but from observation and so forth, but it doesn't necessarily come from an old idea. Newton under the apple tree may be apocryphal, but one could very well imagine, at least, a theory springing directly from an epiphany that's not grounded in prior relevant knowledge—hence my anepistegenesis.

In nature, abiogenesis doesn't seem to occur. We have some reasonable models for how life could have occurred, like the Urey-Miller experiment (and a lot of research has been done since then), but it doesn't seem to be happening anymore. Perhaps the conditions are no longer favourable; certainly, if some primitive pro-ribonucleic organic molecule capable of self-replication did spontaneously arise, it would very likely be exterminated very quickly by existing life forms, which have after all had three billion years longer to learn to replicate and to consume other life forms.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Translation
[info]renatus
2006-12-10 10:59 pm UTC (link)
Yes, dear, I know how science works, having been around the intellectual block a few times. *g* It's the jargon that utterly confused matters; it didn't help that I didn't see abiogenesis as a-bio-genesis but abio-genesis and I was wondering what the hell an abio was. *rolls eyes at self*

However, 'anepistegenesis' is an ugly, ugly word and its meaning isn't even close to readily apparant. I don't suggest using it unless you want to have to explain yourself every time you do anyway. Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation, and all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]petter_haggholm
2006-12-10 11:27 pm UTC (link)
I respect and accept that, and I knew that in re-explaining everything I was covering ground already well covered, but how was I supposed to know what specific bits of jargon needed to be rephrased…?

Besides, I enjoy rephrasing and clarifying things. The more basic you try to make an explanation, the more you are forced to look at the building blocks of your argument and the idea you are attempting to convey. I think that debating and explaining have intrinsic value for learning, not to mention more general intellectual growth.

As for anepistegenesis—come on, Ren, this is me. I wouldn't use it in everyday conversation (at least not very often), but I have a great fondness for long and convoluted words. This one is my baby—my big, clumsy, septasyllabic, beautiful baby.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…