death of the mind.

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Sun Jul 11 02:53:58 EST 2004


In article <40F073BA.6080206 at xympatico.ca>, Joe Legris 
<jalegris at xympatico.ca> writes
>Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>I said no such thing. Your straw-men are starting to take on lives of 
>their own.
>
>Cognitive science accepts all of EAB's empirical results but interprets 
>them as it sees fit, computationally, neurologically, evolutionarily, 
>etc. Notwithstanding all the lofty philosophical talk, behaviourism was 
>just a tactical response to the numbing challenge of investigating 
>animal behaviour without the benefit of appropriate theory, data or 
>instrumentation. Times have changed. The techniques and 
>conceptualizations of modern science are at our fingertips. Why should 
>we pretend that time has stopped?
>

What certainly seems to have stopped is your ability to listen and 
benefit form other peoples' experience. It's an odd experience reading 
someone who belongs to the same class of individuals which both Glen and 
I have spent time teaching, telling *us* what "Cognitive Science" is, 
when the latter formed an essential part of our early training. Have you 
looked into chapter 6 of Quine's "Word and Object" yet? Have you spent 
any time looking into why I have made so much of intensional or 
referential opacity?

As has been said a number of times now, we know what "Cognitive Science" 
is, *and* we know what Radical Behaviourism is too. That's why we can 
spot people such as yourself who don't understand the difference.

You're writing naive nonsense.

-- 
David Longley



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list