death of the mind.

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 12 07:59:15 EST 2004


JL: Actually, Glen didn't know what cog sci is until a few days ago
when I
straightened him out. What does that say about the class of
individuals
that both you and Glen have spent time teaching? Have you spent
any time looking into why a modern science of behaviour, equipped with
the tools and techniques that serve the rest of science so admirably, 
has largely rendered moot issues of intensional or referential
opacity?

GS: The experimental analysis of behavior is the modern scientific
study of behavior. Everything else is mentalism and purports to be
about some set of dimensions other than what is measured and
manipulated.


JL: Although physicists and biologists are ultimately committed to the
extensional stance, they may speculate, hypothesize, employ fanciful 
metaphors and even intensionality from time to time - anything that 
helps. Cognitive scientists are no different, and that's how they
differ from behaviourists.

GS: Cognitive "scientists" differ from behaviorism in that they (CS)
are incautious with their concepts. Metaphors are useful in science
but only if they can eventually have a non-metaphorical meaning. It is
a mistake to confuse the sort of speculation that takes place in
physics with the verbal promiscuity of cognitive "scientists." This is
a favorite ploy of lamers like Joe; "See, we're just like physicists.
Aren't we so very clever?" This is scientism, not science.

As to me not knowing exactly what you were referring to as "cognitive
science," I wouldn't make so much of it. So some lamers throw together
a bunch of tenuously related fields under the impetus of a mistaken
conceptualization of behavior and walk around declaring their
cleverness and sophistication. Big deal.


Joe Legris <jalegris at xympatico.ca> wrote in message



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list