пятница, 8 января 2016 г.

Популярность меметики в научной литературе

The revealed poverty of the gene-meme analogy –
why memetics per se has failed to produce substantive results
Bruce Edmonds
Centre for Policy ModellingManchester Metropolitan University

To illustrate how the memetics bandwagon may have peaked I used ISI's large citation index (http://www.isi.org) and Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) to estimate the number of papers that mention the word memetics.  I picked "memetics" rather than "meme" (which has a longer history) because of the existence of the common French word "meme" (as in le meme chose).  I subtracted those papers about "memetic algorithms" because these are not about memes in any meaningful way [note 3].
Graph showing the number of paper that mention the word "memetics" has peaked
Figure 1. Number of papers mentioning "memetic*" (but not "memetic algorithm*") each year according to Google Scholar (numGS, pink circles) and on the ISI's citation index (numWOS, blue circles).  Lines are 6th degree fitted polynomial trend lines of the respected series.
The fact is that the closer work has been to the core of memetics, the less successful it has been.  The central core, the meme-gene analogy, has not been a wellspring of models and studies which have provided "explanatory leverage" upon observed phenomena.  Rather, it has been a short-lived fad whose effect has been to obscure more than it has been to enlighten.  I am afraid that memetics, as an identifiable discipline, will not be widely missed.