Skepticism

Super-Massive Comment o’ the Week!

TAM London got in the way of me posting a COTW last Friday, so this week I’ve decided to award two — TWO! — Comment o’ the Weeks! I mean Comments o’ the Week! I mean Comments o’ the Weeks! Anyway, one from this week and one from last week.

Each winner will get to choose a question for next Wednesday’s Afternoon Inquisition, which will in turn become the Super-Massive Afternoon Inquisition of DEATH. Or something. Onto COTW!

From last week:

SKrapNo Gravatar // Oct 1, 2009 at 10:56 am

@ekimbrough: Rectal Redundancy sounds like something you would rent at the adult store. I think the sequel was Rectal Redundancy 2: Back in the Back.

.
.
Nicely played, Skrap, nicely played.

From this week:

jtradkeNo Gravatar // Oct 7, 2009 at 9:12 am

I feel like memetics is missing from this discussion. We have, after all, produced the Internet, which has allowed memes to flourish wildly. And while there’s probably a genetic component to intelligence, there’s also undeniably a memetic one: you can’t learn an idea that you’re never even exposed to. We’ve seen a rise in skepticism and a drop in religiosity just in the past few years, and I think that has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with a war of ideas.

Or to put it another way, Randi’s never had kids, but most of us here are like his brain-babies.

Congratulations, Skrap and jtradke! Send in your Afternoon Inquisitions using the comment form.

Remember, nominate your favorite comments by clicking the little arrow by the post and writing “COTW!” somewhere in your response.

Happy Friday, everyone!

Rebecca Watson

Rebecca leads a team of skeptical female activists at Skepchick.org. She travels around the world delivering entertaining talks on science, atheism, feminism, and skepticism. There is currently an asteroid orbiting the sun with her name on it. You can follow her every fascinating move on Twitter or on Google+.

Related Articles

5 Comments

  1. Is there any science to this whole “meme theory” thing? Sure, it’s a good story. And an attractive idea.

    And I, personally, think that “the selfish gene” does a better job at explaining social behavior than a strict “survival of the fittest” approach.

    But what falsifiable claims does meme theory make? Has any of this been tested?

  2. I think memes are like sunsets, in that they describe a phenomenon from our point of view without actually describing the real mechanism.

    The sun doesn’t actually set, but from our perspective, and the rotation of the earth, that’s what appears to be happening.
    I’m sure the same could be said for memes. They aren’t actually actively “taking over” or “infecting” peoples minds like a mental virus, but from our perspective, that’s exactly what appears to be happening with ideas.

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close