Others have spent time on this too - including Dennett, Blackmore and Hull. However I felt that more effort was needed in some places.
Replies to some critics of “Memetics as a pseudo-science”
- Part 1 of 4: Hallpike 2004
- Part 2 of 4: Polichak 2002
- Part 3 of 4: Benitez-Bribiesca 2001
- Part 4 of 4: Lanier 1996
I'm not sure all these critics are worth bothering with. Benitez-Bribiesca (2001) is an oft-cited critic of memetics - but the associated paper is totally hopeless. I rarely bother with addressing such nonsense. I feel much the same about Lanier. Lanier has lots of opinions, but a large proportion of them seem to be worthless nonsense.
I'm actually secretly pleased when such folk criticise memetics. If only Roger Penrose, Rupert Sheldrake, John Searle, Deepak Chopra and Al Gore could be persuaded to say some bad things about memetics!