death of the mind.
Glen M. Sizemore
gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 11 14:40:34 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.
JL: I said no such thing. Your straw-men are starting to take on lives
of their own.
GS: I didn't say that you said it. I speculated that that would be
your argument. So, you claim that it is not your argument, but you
don't specify what your argument is.
JL: Cognitive science accepts all of EAB's empirical results but
them as it sees fit,[
GS: What planet are you from, Joey? Cognitive "science" ignores the
data from the EAB. If it did not, for example, it would not ask stupid
questions about the origins of response classes that are simply
generalized operants. Only by ignoring what is known about the basics
of stimulus control can one think that over-regularization of verbs
cannot be explained by exposure to contingencies of reinforcement. Or
is that another straw man, Joe?
]computationally, neurologically, evolutionarily,
etc. Notwithstanding all the lofty philosophical talk, behaviourism
just a tactical response to the numbing challenge of investigating
animal behaviour without the benefit of appropriate theory, data or
GS: You have an odd perspective on the history of psychology, as well
as an overblown view of the success of mainstream psychology and much
of behavioral neuroscience. As I have told you many times, much of the
punch of modern behavioral neuroscience comes from its
instrumentation, which is a product of chemistry and physics;
computers, microelectrodes, fMRI, increasingly specific compounds etc.
Do you think I am unaware of these? None of this depends on the
fanciful horseshit that is peddled by cognitive "science." There have
been no innovations in conceptualizing psychological phenomena since
behaviorism - there has been nothing more than a regression to earlier
mentalistic epistemologies dressed up in metaphor.
JL: Times have changed. The techniques and
conceptualizations of modern science are at our fingertips. Why should
we pretend that time has stopped?
GS: What a pretentious bit of twaddle. Time has, indeed, stopped for
mainstream psychology, and it is called cognitive "science." How it is
that academic generations of psychologists have "grown up" with so
little awareness of the history of their field that they think the
mentalistic crap being peddled is anything but the same old
folk-psychological muddle is almost, but not quite, beyond me.
Joe Legris <jalegris at xympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<40F073BA.6080206 at xympatico.ca>...
> Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
More information about the Neur-sci