Bonus material on The Evolution of Antievolution Policies After Kitzmiller v. Dover

getwittered: https://twitter.com/NickJMatzke/status/678166354310991872

OK, time for a break!

Thanks, Nick; this is terrific stuff.

I hope the illumination sends the ID/cockroaches scurring. (pardon my insult to cockroaches)

Nick Matzke said: getwittered: https://twitter.com/NickJMatzke/status/678166354310991872 OK, time for a break!

I love the way Ray puts "highly intelligent" right into his definition.

Ray Martinez said:

Nick Matzke said: getwittered: https://twitter.com/NickJMatzke/status/678166354310991872 OK, time for a break!

Creationists, defined as highly intelligent men who accepted the design of nature, in the 18th century, produced the enlightened Document. Never did they intend for their worldview to be ruled unconstitutional in the 20th century. It was persons who reject design and believe in evolution that corrupted the Constitution to reflect their bias. Before the 20th century Creationism was taught in publically funded arenas. One day we will reverse the corruption in the stroke of one ruling.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Nick Matzke said: getwittered: https://twitter.com/NickJMatzke/status/678166354310991872 OK, time for a break!

Creationists, defined as highly intelligent men who accepted the design of nature, in the 18th century, produced the enlightened Document. Never did they intend for their worldview to be ruled unconstitutional in the 20th century. It was persons who reject design and believe in evolution that corrupted the Constitution to reflect their bias. Before the 20th century Creationism was taught in publically funded arenas. One day we will reverse the corruption in the stroke of one ruling.

Tell us, Ray: what is the scientific definition of design? How does one detect it? How, when you hallucinate its presence in nature, can you be sure it is the work of a god?

Nick, one question that has not been addressed: would it have been possible to ask the authors of these bills what was copied from what? Or would they all have been covering their tracks?

Also, another reason why the DI might be irritated by this paper is that it shows phylogenetic machinery actually correctly inferring the history of something. If it has gotten that wrong, presumably they'd be trumpeting it all over the place.

Joe Felsenstein said: Nick, one question that has not been addressed: would it have been possible to ask the authors of these bills what was copied from what? Or would they all have been covering their tracks? Also, another reason why the DI might be irritated by this paper is that it shows phylogenetic machinery actually correctly inferring the history of something. If it has gotten that wrong, presumably they'd be trumpeting it all over the place.

John Harshman said: I love the way Ray puts "highly intelligent" right into his definition.

Ray Martinez said:

John Harshman said: I love the way Ray puts "highly intelligent" right into his definition.

Got a better description of the Founding Fathers?

What science does is deliberate equations that tot up to the creation, which in the end, if the sums do add up proves that the creation can be formulated. The creation first, then the equation that put it their second. What a discovery, the creation can alter a sum or two and can manipulate an out come. The creation changes as the environment changes, natural history has taught us that. Once science has found the equation that makes things work right then a prevention can be put in place to stop things going wrong.

We were comparing creationist/ID bills and their provenance from Discovery Institute prefabs years ago.

Nothing on the grand scale of Nick's masterful opus, which mentions four legislative assaults in New Mexico (SB371 and HB506, 2007; SB433, 2009; and HB302, 2011); the following links offer a peek at some of the goings-on at the species level in New Mexico, as posted by NMSR.

Evolution of Creationist Legislation in the New Mexico Legislature

Intelligent Design Creationist Proposed Bills and Joint Memorials in the 2007 New Mexico Legislature (PDF by Kim Johnson)

Creationist Legislation, New Mexico Legislature, 2011 60-day Session

Creationist Legislation, New Mexico Legislature, 2009 60-day Session

Great work Nick!!

Marilyn said: What science does is deliberate equations that tot up to the creation, which in the end, if the sums do add up proves that the creation can be formulated. The creation first, then the equation that put it their second. What a discovery, the creation can alter a sum or two and can manipulate an out come. The creation changes as the environment changes, natural history has taught us that. Once science has found the equation that makes things work right then a prevention can be put in place to stop things going wrong.

Marilyn said: What science does is deliberate equations that tot up to the creation, which in the end, if the sums do add up proves that the creation can be formulated.

Joe Felsenstein said: Nick, one question that has not been addressed: would it have been possible to ask the authors of these bills what was copied from what? Or would they all have been covering their tracks? Also, another reason why the DI might be irritated by this paper is that it shows phylogenetic machinery actually correctly inferring the history of something. If it has gotten that wrong, presumably they'd be trumpeting it all over the place.

Ray Martinez said:

John Harshman said: I love the way Ray puts "highly intelligent" right into his definition.

Got a better description of the Founding Fathers?

Ah yes, you can see Dave Thomas's post above on the copying in New Mexico!

If you look at the tree, you can see the 2007, 2009, and 2011 NM bills are all on the same lineage (it's kind of the last lineage branching off before the AFA+Ouchita merger produces the SEA tradition, which then takes over). But, various other states are on that lineage also -- the position of New Mexico on that subtree, though, suggests that NM is the "ancestral state" -- so to speak. :-)

Given that we know New Mexico has had some particularly activist anti-science, pro-ID/pro-critical analysis groups, it would make sense if their bills got picked up in other states either because (a) the New Mexico stuff was in the news or (b) the New Mexico people promoted their bill texts in conservative/fundamentalist media, discussion forums, backchannels, whatever.

It's possible Dave Thomas et al. might have accidentally heard more about that specific question (NM being the ancestral state for late-model AFAs).

(PS: Slide 15 of the trait map PDF is a parsimony ancestral state reconstruction of...the ancestral state. The color scheme isn't great but it's there.

But how would they demonstrate that Nick’s program got a particular link wrong without revealing the actual stealth tactics that were involved in the propagation of this legislation from state to state?

*con-sponsor -> co-sponsor
*Montana -> I was thinking of Missouri, although Montana has a bit of the copying-within-state happening also

I wonder if there are any examples of any egregious errors in one bill that were inadvertently copied into others. You know, kind of like ERV evolution. It was a mistake originally, but it wasn't noticed and so it was passed on to future incarnations intact. You know, something like a spelling error or a grammatical error. Something that was unlikely to have arisen independently in two different lineages. Now that would be a good object lesson for witless creationists.

Ray claims:
"Creationists, defined as highly intelligent men"

I see at least two problems with this nonsensical definition. Firstly "creationist" is actually defined as someone who *believes* in creationism, despite the evidence. And creationism is defined as "any belief that asserts that some god(s) created the universe and/or its contents via magic, rather than that the universe arose through purely natural processes."[1] And similarly, "Creationism is the religious belief that the Universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation."[2] Such nonsensical redefinitions of words is common among obscurantists. "if something is white and the Church says it is black, Ignatius says we should all believe it is black."[3]

Secondly, how would Ray even know what "highly intelligent men" (no women?) are? There is no recognizable intelligence in his idiosyncratic rambling postings.

NOTES:
1. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creationism
2. http://www.conservapedia.com/Creationism
3. http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Loyola.html

Ray Martinez said:

Nick Matzke said: getwittered: https://twitter.com/NickJMatzke/status/678166354310991872 OK, time for a break!

[Sniping the first portion of nonsense] Before the 20th century Creationism was taught in publically funded arenas. One day we will reverse the corruption in the stroke of one ruling.

Keelyn said:

Ray Martinez said:

Nick Matzke said: getwittered: https://twitter.com/NickJMatzke/status/678166354310991872 OK, time for a break!

[Sniping the first portion of nonsense] Before the 20th century Creationism was taught in publically funded arenas. One day we will reverse the corruption in the stroke of one ruling.

I don't know who you think "we" are, but you can be assured that there will not be any reversal - ever. I realize that recognizing certain aspects of reality is not a strong suit for you, but you are not going to see what you want happen - deal with it as best you can.

Hey Ray, we're still waiting for how you know your favorite rock is NOT designed. Since you seem to treat it as really obvious, then it should be simple to give us a method that WE could apply to any given object to tell if it is designed -- perhaps designed to appear 'natural' -- or undesigned.

Just Bob said: Hey Ray, we're still waiting for how you know your favorite rock is NOT designed. Since you seem to treat it as really obvious, then it should be simple to give us a method that WE could apply to any given object to tell if it is designed -- perhaps designed to appear 'natural' -- or undesigned.

phhht said:

Just Bob said: Hey Ray, we're still waiting for how you know your favorite rock is NOT designed. Since you seem to treat it as really obvious, then it should be simple to give us a method that WE could apply to any given object to tell if it is designed -- perhaps designed to appear 'natural' -- or undesigned.

It's futile to ask that of Reynaldo. He can no more say how to tell the designed from the non-designed than he can tell you how he knows his gods are real. He just does. It's not a question he can answer. These are not rational issues for Reynaldo. He's a religious loony, and he can't be rational about his irrational convictions. All he can do is to bluster and cite Paley.

phhht said:

Keelyn said:

Ray Martinez said:

Nick Matzke said: getwittered: https://twitter.com/NickJMatzke/status/678166354310991872 OK, time for a break!

[Sniping the first portion of nonsense] Before the 20th century Creationism was taught in publically funded arenas. One day we will reverse the corruption in the stroke of one ruling.

I don't know who you think "we" are, but you can be assured that there will not be any reversal - ever. I realize that recognizing certain aspects of reality is not a strong suit for you, but you are not going to see what you want happen - deal with it as best you can.

Poor Reynaldo has nothing but his wishful thinking.

stevaroni said:

Marilyn said: What science does is deliberate equations that tot up to the creation, which in the end, if the sums do add up proves that the creation can be formulated.

Um. No. I can add up all the marbles in a jar, it doesn't imply there's any special significance to that number.

Or you could say it was very good of the ten to fit another one in, it could make things better.

DS said: I wonder if there are any examples of any egregious errors in one bill that were inadvertently copied into others. You know, kind of like ERV evolution. It was a mistake originally, but it wasn't noticed and so it was passed on to future incarnations intact. You know, something like a spelling error or a grammatical error. Something that was unlikely to have arisen independently in two different lineages. Now that would be a good object lesson for witless creationists.

An ancestral state reconstruction of ancestral states:
http://phylo.wikidot.com/matzke-2015-science-paper-on-the-evolution-of-antievolution#states

The work of charting and diagramming links between antievolution bills is important. Why not make an infographic too?

Let’s not get tied down by the claims of ‘memetics’, which have been widely panned. Biologists are not trained nor are they competent in studies of cultural artefacts (like bills and trials); neither are (meme bandwagon) philosophers like Dennett or Blackmore or cyberneticians like Heylighen.

Obviously, people still promoting ‘memetics’ should be familiar with the documented failure of the Journal of Memetics http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2002/vol6/edmonds_b_letter.html and http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2005/vol9/edmonds_b.html

In summary, Nick made a nice diagram (and it probably didn’t cost him much, or Vocativ). It’s a nice cultural story. But basing it on the myth of ‘(phylo)memetics’ makes it highly suspicious.

Let’s be honest; it is not actually a ‘phylomemetic method’ used, but rather simply a ‘diagrammatic method,’ for which the term ‘decision tree’ is more commonly used in the proper fields. Or did Nick Matzke somehow just become a social scientist overnight (ala E.O. Wilson), with all the baggage that contains? Would anything be lost in Matzke's article by dropping 'memes' and '(phylo)memetics' altogether?

One more report on Matzke’s article, in Forbes online:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2015/12/20/how-creationism-has-evolved-since-the-dover-trial/

"How Creationism Has Evolved Since the Dover Trial" by John Farrell, December 20, 2015

A straightforward report.

I’ll just mention that he refers to “half-baked folk-science”. (A generous characterization, IMHO.)

Just Bob said: Hey Ray, we're still waiting for how you know your favorite rock is NOT designed. Since you seem to treat it as really obvious, then it should be simple to give us a method that WE could apply to any given object to tell if it is designed -- perhaps designed to appear 'natural' -- or undesigned.

MiddleStMan said: The work of charting and diagramming links between antievolution bills is important. Why not make an infographic too? Let’s not get tied down by the claims of ‘memetics’, which have been widely panned. Biologists are not trained nor are they competent in studies of cultural artefacts (like bills and trials); neither are (meme bandwagon) philosophers like Dennett or Blackmore or cyberneticians like Heylighen. Obviously, people still promoting ‘memetics’ should be familiar with the documented failure of the Journal of Memetics http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2002/vol6/edmonds_b_letter.html and http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2005/vol9/edmonds_b.html In summary, Nick made a nice diagram (and it probably didn’t cost him much, or Vocativ). It’s a nice cultural story. But basing it on the myth of ‘(phylo)memetics’ makes it highly suspicious. Let’s be honest; it is not actually a ‘phylomemetic method’ used, but rather simply a ‘diagrammatic method,’ for which the term ‘decision tree’ is more commonly used in the proper fields. Or did Nick Matzke somehow just become a social scientist overnight (ala E.O. Wilson), with all the baggage that contains? Would anything be lost in Matzke's article by dropping 'memes' and '(phylo)memetics' altogether?

How about this demonstration that a nucleon (that is, either a proton or a neutron) is designed. A nucleon is made up of three quarks, but a quark cannot exist on its own, therefore a nucleon is irreducbly complex (any division into parts is not possible),
and therefore intelligently designed.

Nuclei are made up of nucleons, and thus have more information. So too, atoms. And thus anything made up of atoms is intelligently designed.

But, but, but, .... a quark can exist by itself for a very, very, very short period of time. What does that say?

How does time of independent existence figure into IR?

Is IR, like the Designer, imaginary? Does it exist only in the minds of ID/creationists?

prongs said: But, but, but, .... a quark can exist by itself for a very, very, very short period of time. What does that say? How does time of independent existence figure into IR? Is IR, like the Designer, imaginary? Does it exist only in the minds of ID/creationists?

Nick, Michael gnor showed up in Jeff Shallit's post on the issue. You might add it to your blog listing.

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said:

John Harshman said: I love the way Ray puts "highly intelligent" right into his definition.

Got a better description of the Founding Fathers?

That wasn't a description of the founding fathers; it was a definition of "creationist".

Then later you try to attach that label to the founding fathers. I know you have trouble expressing yourself, but you should at least try to understand what the sentences you type do mean.

Ray Martinez said:

John Harshman said:

Ray Martinez said:

John Harshman said: I love the way Ray puts "highly intelligent" right into his definition.

Got a better description of the Founding Fathers?

That wasn't a description of the founding fathers; it was a definition of "creationist".

The context defines and describes the position of the Founding Fathers.

Then later you try to attach that label to the founding fathers. I know you have trouble expressing yourself, but you should at least try to understand what the sentences you type do mean.

If what you said was true you wouldn't even bother responding; so we have a deliberate misrepresentation caused by inability to address my point. Nothing new here: it's the way all Evolutionists operate. This is why evolution is rejected: you guys can't address what was actually said because what was actually said refutes your position. Again: here is the link to what was actually said: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/12/bonus-material.html#comment-347854

Ray, the US was founded almost 80 years before Darwin. The use of the term "creationist" before founding fathers is meaningless before common descent became the best explanation for life. Why did't you add slavery proponents in front of their names? or racist, or white, or wealthy, or misogynistic? How about all the children they had with mistresses - shouldn't that be something our leaders should emulate?

Those who wrote the Constitution expected it to be amended and even replaced if needed. Like science, they knew the law should evolve and not be static. Your conclusion is inanity on stilts. Ray if you want your creationism taught in schools, then all you need do is tell us who the designer is and how you know that. You need to tell us how, what, where, when and why it designed, made, created - whatever you want to call it. Give us a supernatural science.

Still waiting for you to explain the mice Ray. You can read my specific questions on the bathroom wall. Until you come up with a better explanation, you can consider the idea of immutability falsified.

Ray focused in on 'creationist' in describing the U.S. founders because he believes that evolution and much of other modern scholarship is a liberal conspiracy to undermine morals as defined by his kind. Easy.

What a boring and pitiful incompetent you are, Reynaldo. Go away.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Nick, Michael gnor showed up in Jeff Shallit's post on the issue. You might add it to your blog listing.

TomS said: Not that this is all that serious, but just for my enlightenment - how about the precursor state of an independent quark and a pair of quarks?

Ray Martinez said: Creationists, defined as highly intelligent men who accepted the design of nature,

in the 18th century, produced the enlightened Document. Never did they intend for their worldview to be ruled unconstitutional in the 20th century.

Quarks can however form pairs in addition to triplets. Mesons are composed of quark pairs.

Henry J said:

Quarks can however form pairs in addition to triplets. Mesons are composed of quark pairs.

But are those pairs stable? ;)

Nick Matzke said: Done! Cheers! Also I added documentation of how DI Fellow Michael Egnor thinks my study was "criminal misuse of public funds", as he says in the comments section of Shallit's blogpost. So much drama!

Nick Matzke said:

MiddleStMan said: The work of charting and diagramming links between antievolution bills is important. Why not make an infographic too? Let’s not get tied down by the claims of ‘memetics’, which have been widely panned. Biologists are not trained nor are they competent in studies of cultural artefacts (like bills and trials); neither are (meme bandwagon) philosophers like Dennett or Blackmore or cyberneticians like Heylighen. Obviously, people still promoting ‘memetics’ should be familiar with the documented failure of the Journal of Memetics http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2002/vol6/edmonds_b_letter.html and http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2005/vol9/edmonds_b.html In summary, Nick made a nice diagram (and it probably didn’t cost him much, or Vocativ). It’s a nice cultural story. But basing it on the myth of ‘(phylo)memetics’ makes it highly suspicious. Let’s be honest; it is not actually a ‘phylomemetic method’ used, but rather simply a ‘diagrammatic method,’ for which the term ‘decision tree’ is more commonly used in the proper fields. Or did Nick Matzke somehow just become a social scientist overnight (ala E.O. Wilson), with all the baggage that contains? Would anything be lost in Matzke's article by dropping 'memes' and '(phylo)memetics' altogether?

Dood. Read my Supplemental Material. I too am skeptical of the first generation of memeology, and say so. But I think phylomemetics has a chance of moving things forward. Time will tell, but it's not like there are no precedents for this -- phylogenies of texts and other cultural objects have been published dozens of times, at least - I cite examples and discussion in the Supp. Mat. And, anyway, this paper has nothing to do with "decision trees" or mere "tree drawing". Decision trees are a statistical tool that divides data into clusters with splitting rules that minimize the variance, and do so in a bifuracting decision tree. This is vaguely like a phenetic phylogenetic method but still not really. Anyway, all of the programs used in this paper were straight-up phylogenetic ones. I don't care if you call the diagram a phylogeny or a phylomemogram or what (copyright on phylomemogram BTW, I just invented that) -- but the analysis was a phylogenetic one. As long as there is copying and modification -- descent with modification -- use of phylogenetic programs is a reasonable idea.

“For one thing, just empirically, the idea of memetics, of a science of cultural change based on a close analogy with natural selection, it is just a fact: it's never taken off. It's thirty-five years old almost at this point. Every five years a paper appears that heralds the final development that we have all been waiting for of a science of memetics - and nothing ever happens. ... there is something deeply flawed with the idea.” – Pinker (2009)

“copyright on phylomemogram BTW, I just invented that” - Nick

“I don’t care if you call the diagram a phylogeny or a phylomemogram or what (copyright on phylomemogram BTW, I just invented that) – but the analysis was a phylogenetic one.” - Nick

Hi MiddleStMan,

I'm at a bit of loss about your comments. I tried to make everything reasonably clear in the Supplemental Material and the references cited, but you seem to have missed most of the Supplemental Material and all of the references (for example: I didn't invent the term "phylomemetics", instead I cited the paper that did). Also it's pretty clear that you have only a vague understanding of phylogenetics. Instead of actually reading and considering carefully, you are jamming my work into some preconceptions you have about other stuff done by other people -- mainly, you are fighting some kind of battle against memetics and Dawkins et al. You seem to think I am on "their side" and that's the main beef you have with me. If you googled me and Dawkins (and Mary Midgley - I am a huge Midgley fan) you would see just how wrong that is.

You see, I agree with basically every criticism of traditional memetics (at least the first generation; I haven't followed it in detail in recent years). And I also disagree with the more general attitude, common amongst a certain subset of "scientific triumphalists", which tries to reduce all fields, including the humanities, to physical sciences. The original memetics was an extension of this and, I think, showed how the approach doesn't lead to much. I am not a reductionist, or at least, I think in many cases people try to apply a naive form of reductionism that oversimplifies and distorts more than it clarifies and informs. This is often tied into an entire anti-religious project, which is clearly part of what original memetics was about (religion as a "mind virus"), and again this is something I don't find very useful.

All that said though, I am a scientist, and we are pragmatic sorts. If it looks like some combination of data-plus-statistical-method has some reasonable chance of allowing us to test hypotheses, then it's interesting. It looks to me like phylomemetics has potential where memetics did not -- mostly because phylogenetic methods are about more than just getting the phylogenetic tree (another thing you missed). These days, phylogenetic methods are also applied to things like lineage diversification and extinction rates through time, asking whether or not these processes correlate with evolving traits, changing environment, etc. I was able to do a little bit of this in the current study with current methods -- we are limited mostly by the fact that most methods don't work with trees that include "fossils". But I was able to do a little bit, and I think this shows the potential for phylomemetics to be a more rigorous science, at least in cases (as I said in Supplemental Material) where the memes are large and stable enough to do phylogenetics on them.

(Also as I said in Supp. Mat., original memetics was closely tied to selectionism, but as most people actually in evolutionary biology knows, evolution is about much more than just selection. Drift and other processes are equally interesting from a scientific perspective. And, the phylogeny can be estimated independently of any strong assumptions about selection etc. - the main key assumption of phylogenetics is that changes are relatively rare compared to copying events. Ideally, once you have a phylogeny, you use it to test hypotheses about these other processes.)

Last point -- google "all models are wrong, some models are useful."

Henry J said:

Quarks can however form pairs in addition to triplets. Mesons are composed of quark pairs.

But are those pairs stable? ;)

SLC said: Pi meson's are stable relative to their quark constituents. There is no way they could decay into 2 quarks as the sum of the masses of the quarks far exceeds the mass of pi mesons. In addition, the forces holding the quarks together increase as energy is added, much like a harmonic oscillator so the LHC or any subsequent such instrument could not break them apart.

Quarks can however form pairs in addition to triplets. Mesons are composed of quark pairs.

But are those pairs stable? ;)

TomS said: But does this help in addressing the irreducible complexity of a nucleon as a complex of quarks?

TomS said:

SLC said: Pi meson's are stable relative to their quark constituents. There is no way they could decay into 2 quarks as the sum of the masses of the quarks far exceeds the mass of pi mesons. In addition, the forces holding the quarks together increase as energy is added, much like a harmonic oscillator so the LHC or any subsequent such instrument could not break them apart.

Quarks can however form pairs in addition to triplets. Mesons are composed of quark pairs.

But are those pairs stable? ;)

But does this help in addressing the irreducible complexity of a nucleon as a complex of quarks?

MiddleStMan said: As I said in the other thread, what you did in your article is merely an exercise in diagramming. Congrats. Hurrah. But you quite obviously didn’t invent some new field (credited to biologist C.J. Howe?!) that crosses natural sciences with social sciences. Or do you wish to disagree?

“‘Phylomemetics’ is the application of phylogenetics to memes. The term "meme" was invented by Richard Dawkins in the 1970s (The Selfish Gene, 1976), and refers to a cultural object that gets copied and modified in the culture. When memes are relatively long and stable (as with legislative bill texts), there is enough information to use phylogenetic methods to reconstruct their history.”

“it’s pretty clear that you have only a vague understanding of phylogenetics”

“I agree with basically every criticism of traditional memetics”

“It looks to me like phylomemetics has potential where memetics did not – mostly because phylogenetic methods...”

“antievolution bills seem to evolve rather like pathogens”

“I was able to do a little bit”

MiddleStMan said: Thanks for that context explanation, Nick. I’m pleased to see you are “not a reductionist,” like many atheists are. This is important for how one represents themselves as a human being. I’ve distantly followed your works over the past 10 years and didn’t suspect otherwise.

MiddleStMan said: If I’m wrong, Nick, then answer us please: if you studied ‘anti-evolution’ bills 24-7 for the next 10 years what contribution would this actually make to biological knowledge? My contention is: nothing. What’s yours? For the record, let’s be straight: yes or no, are you a proponent of ‘memetics’ and ‘memes’, Nick? A simple yes or no answer is preferred. I'm against this silly Dawkins delusion.

MiddleStMan said: Thanks for that context explanation, Nick. I’m pleased to see you are “not a reductionist,” like many atheists are. This is important for how one represents themselves as a human being. I’ve distantly followed your works over the past 10 years and didn’t suspect otherwise. I did read your supplementary materials, in which you wrote:

“‘Phylomemetics’ is the application of phylogenetics to memes. The term "meme" was invented by Richard Dawkins in the 1970s (The Selfish Gene, 1976), and refers to a cultural object that gets copied and modified in the culture. When memes are relatively long and stable (as with legislative bill texts), there is enough information to use phylogenetic methods to reconstruct their history.”

Let us be clear about this. Obviously you believe a ‘meme’ is something ‘real,’ i.e. something that ‘exists,’ Nick. Is that incorrect?

Now pause for a moment of thought: What if ‘meme’ is simply the wrong term to use, Nick? What if ‘memetics’ is a nonsense field of study made up by a biologist with cultural studies envy? What if it’s just fake; a mirage conjured by a disciplinary imposter? Would you still continue to use it? This appears to be the source of our disagreement; you don’t think you’ve been duped by Dawkins regarding culture whilst I think you have been. The notion of ‘phylomemetics’ makes as much sense as calling ‘centaur hunting’ a science given the failure of memetics as a field of study. Phylogenetics, otoh, sure, that works. But please don’t confuse the two, Nick.

“it’s pretty clear that you have only a vague understanding of phylogenetics”

Yes, and it’s pretty clear that you have only a vague understanding of social science and map-making. So, are we now even and ready to cooperate?

“I agree with basically every criticism of traditional memetics”

Then, obviously, you should drop the term from your vocabulary as useless nonsense. Why don’t you, Nick? Are you trying to resurrect the foolish notion of 'memetics' as 'memeology' in your appeals to 'phylomemetics'?

“It looks to me like phylomemetics has potential where memetics did not – mostly because phylogenetic methods...”

If all you’re doing is substituting ‘memetics’ for ‘genetics’ in the terms ‘phylomemetics’ and ‘phylogenetics’ then my concern is validated. But you have yet to acknowledge this is what you are doing. You skip back and forth between phylomemetics and phylogenetics in both your paper and in the supplementary material. The bottom line, though, is that you seem to think ‘memetics’ is a good idea that simply needs updating, while I and many others think it was dead in the water to begin with in Dawkins’ culture-envy mind.

As for me, I have no problem with the ‘highjacked’ use of the term ‘meme’ to refer to ‘viral media’, i.e. an image or video that spreads rapidly on-line, as a kind of social epidemiology. It’s a much smaller claim in such context than Dawkins’ grandiose quasi-cultural theory (that even he balked about). But the most interesting questions for me are not answered simply by the action of spreading (which can be ‘mapped’ into a variety of infographics, e.g. like a ‘phylogenetic-like’ tree). Rather, it is issues of the content and intention of ‘memes’, attraction, adaptation, re-distribution, word-of-mouth, jokes, etc. This is not something you seem to care about professionally.

To me, Nick, an ‘anti-evolution bill’ is simply *NOT* a ‘meme’. People create 'bills' with intentions, aims, goals, etc. They thus have fundamental characteristics that betray the (Dawkins-like) ‘logic’ of ‘memetics’ as Dennett, Blackmore, Tyler and everyone else I’ve read who uses ‘memes’ (with the specific exception of ‘viral media’).

Bills have aims that so-called ‘memes’ don’t have by definition. They thus require different scholarly treatment.

“antievolution bills seem to evolve rather like pathogens”

Again, you are simply out of your league in making this analogical claim (go back to biology silly reductionist who claims not to be one!). Bills are neither ‘organisms’ nor ‘mechanisms’ and many scholars acknowledge that these things do not change in the same way. That said, however, granted that NCSE is a unique institution that focuses particularly on these bills and that it is therefore entirely in keeping that you (or someone else) would contribute to the social science of anti-evolution bills using mapping techniques. So, we are in agreement on the helpful results, just not the (evolutionary memetic) claims.

“I was able to do a little bit”

Yes, and I find that has some small value as your personal contribution to social scientific knowledge. It still makes no sense call it ‘phylogenetics’, or worse, ‘phylomemetics’. It would be enough for you to admit that your desire to build a field called ‘phylomemetics’ is actually rooted in ‘cultural,’ not ‘natural’ science. Iow, there is no (and cannot possibly be a) ‘natural science’ that maps ‘education bills,’ since they are artificial. If I’m wrong, Nick, then answer us please: if you studied ‘anti-evolution’ bills 24-7 for the next 10 years what contribution would this actually make to biological knowledge? My contention is: nothing. What’s yours? For the record, let’s be straight: yes or no, are you a proponent of ‘memetics’ and ‘memes’, Nick? A simple yes or no answer is preferred. I'm against this silly Dawkins delusion.

“I believe thoughts are real. I believe words are real. I believe legislative texts are real. They are all things that can be copied and spread and modified. Am I wrong?” - Nick Matzke

“Did a memeticist murder your children or something? I don’t get the hostility over this issue.” - Nick Matzke

“We could just keep saying “phylogenies of cultural objects” each time we want to note these differences, but that gets cumbersome.” - Nick Matzke

“You basically admit that the term ‘meme’ is legitimate, below, so you’ve undermined your own criticism above.” – Nick Matzke

“There aren’t random mutations to these bills. It’s humans making decisions when you change something.” – Nick Matzke (http://www.vocativ.com/news/262022/evolutionary-of-anti-evolution-laws/)

“the difference between the editing process in biology, versus in memes, is one of the disanalogies between meme evolution and biological evolution.” – Nick Matzke

“Matzke’s achievement has been to map this evolution.” (https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/the-evolution-of-creationism-kitzmiller-10-years-on/)

“or perhaps from texts that are circulating on conservative listservs or backchannels or whatever they must have” – Nick responding to Joe (“would it have been possible to ask the authors of these bills what was copied from what?”)

MiddleStMan said: Thanks for the provocation of your paper, Nick, the supplementary material and your comments here. I’ve followed a flurry of new thoughts, links and possibilities in the recent days due to this. My main concern is your occasional use of the terms ‘memes’ and ‘memetics’ and whether or not it needlessly clouds the writing.

“I believe thoughts are real. I believe words are real. I believe legislative texts are real. They are all things that can be copied and spread and modified. Am I wrong?” - Nick Matzke

No, you’re not wrong (according to realism). The main question is ‘how’ are they copied, spread, modified, shared, traded, persuaded, interpreted, exaggerated, underdetermined, multiplied, grasped, misunderstood, deliberated, judged, etc. and whether or not applying ‘trees’ or other images to attempt to map this cultural PROCESS are accurate and reliable or misleading. Who is responsible for that active process making decisions; surely not the texts themselves? There’s the danger of falling into Whitehead’s “fallacy of misplaced concreteness” in what you claim to have done in tracking ‘memes’ in the form of bills.

Indeed, the brazen foolishness of coining a term that rhymes with ‘gene’ and expecting it to be legitimate and valuable in studies of culture, far outside of one’s fields of expertise, may easily be compared with the foolishness of young earth creationism, if you think about it. Dawkins’ idea was presumptuous (many would say preposterous) from the start, but not a few people, especially those in the sciences wanting to have a more ‘objective’ science of culture, were tricked by its reductionistic apparently scientising character (just as happened with sociobiology).

Richard B. Hoppe said: Nick, Michael gnor showed up in Jeff Shallit's post on the issue. You might add it to your blog listing.

Also OT but sort of related:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/20/fairytales-much-older-than-previously-thought-say-researchers
"The study employed phylogenetic analysis, which was developed to investigate evolutionary relationships between species, and used a tree of Indo-European languages to trace the descent of shared tales on it, to see how far they could be demonstrated to go back in time."

Since another post has recently been added to this thread, are the lost posts able/going to be restored? I've only posted a few times here on Pandas Thumb, but now this exchange with Nick Matzke has been truncated.

I saved my post and could send it again. It still doesn't seem Matzke recognizes clearly why (or perhaps even that) he is trying to resurrect the already largely dead ideology of 'memetics' by adding 'phylo' to it.