death of the mind.

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 10 13:47:18 EST 2004


JL: I agree that some aspects of behaviourism are useful. It does not follow
that cognitive science is useless. In fact, this is an outright
contradiction because cognitive science includes the empirical results of
EAB even as it rejects the philosophical bluster that tags along.



GS: No, behaviorism and cognitive "science" offer different, fundamentally
incompatible, views of the same phenomena. My guess is that you want to
argue that cognitive "science" accepts lawful "input-output" relations, but
goes beyond them in considering the "actual mechanisms." That is what you
were going to say, isn't it, Joey? But radical behaviorism is not about
"input-output" relations, and your sophomoric view has no substance.



"Joe Legris" <jalegris at xympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:40F01D6A.2070302 at xympatico.ca...
> Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> I agree that some aspects of behaviourism are useful. It does not follow
> that cognitive science is useless. In fact, this is an outright
> contradiction because cognitive science includes the empirical results
> of EAB even as it rejects the philosophical bluster that tags along.
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list