death of the mind.
Glen M. Sizemore
gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 10 08:10:55 EST 2004
Odd that Peter would have referred you to O'Regan and Noe, and then say what
> he does about "seeing red" (but then, Peter is a complete idiot). O& N is
> indispensable reading after Science and Human Behavior, About Behaviorsm,
> and an undergrad text on behavior analysis. I leave out Verbal Behavior
> because it is not really possible to read it on your own.
JL: That's right.
GS: I'm always right.
JL: Skinner intended V.B. as a speculative work, but by now it has attained
the status of standard dogma for the radical behaviourist.
GS: I have found that the charge of dogmatism tends to be leveled by those
that are unable to refute the position in any cogent way.
JL: The worthy
task of empirically verifying Skinner's conjectures as they pertain to
humans (conveniently unethical, no?)[.]
GS: Do you deny that experiments where the child's verbal environment is
deliberately manipulated in extreme ways would get at "how much 'nurture'"
there is to "language?" And do you deny that such experiments would be
unethical? If you answer "yes," then you must also admit that the fact that
the most straightforward and powerful experiments are unethical is not a
"convenience" invented by behaviorists, as you imply.
JL: [.]has been deprecated in favour of
political indoctrination, a time-honoured technique for instilling
"difficult" subject matter. A qualified handler will ensure that you
"understand" the book.
GS: Political indoctrination? You mean like your post? VB is hard to
understand. Graduate students require guidance. You are welcome to call this
"indoctrination" if you wish, but it doesn't differ from the way graduate
students are "indoctrinated" into cognitive psychology. The products,
however, differ; behaviorism is useful, cognitive psychology is not.
"Joe Legris" <jalegris at xympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:40EFE150.1070802 at xympatico.ca...
> Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
More information about the Neur-sci