It may be the case that a phenomenon is real but the extant field of inquiry into that phenomenon is pseudoscience. For an example, consider alchemy. Alchemi

It may be the case that a phenomenon is real but the extant field of inquiry into that phenomenon is pseudoscience. For an example, consider alchemy. Alchemists were observing real phenomena, but their methods and theories weren't sound. api is right that memetics as a field is in disrepute, considered pseudoscience by many. That doesn't mean the premise of ideas propagating through the population, surviving or dying based on various criteria, is totally bunk. But you have to be willing to distinguish the concept of memes from 'memetics as a science.' I think it's a useful analogy, but it has limitations. One hazard of memetics mirrors a common hazard in discussions about genetics. Anthropomorphizing genes by saying things like "the gene wants to replicate" or "the gene is selfish" is common for obvious reasons, but you have to be careful to not take it literally. When you make the analogy between genes and ideas, that habit of anthropomorphization comes along for the ride, and in the process ideas are given agency of their own. Saying that the idea has agency of it's own, that it self-replicates, is in some sense tantamount to questioning the agency of the humans participating in the spread of the idea. In brief, memetics steps on the third rail of free will.