death of the mind.

[Wolf Kirchmeir]

John Hasenkam wrote:
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:bPSJc.27499$TB3.1137662 at news20.bellglobal.com...
...snip...
> 
> I am the most probably the least well-schooled person on this forum. I hated
> school, hated university even more. That's brain damage for you. A touch of
> opposition defiant disorder perhaps. That may explain why I've always
> enjoyed kicking against the pricks.
> 
> So whaddya reckon Wolf, do I have any chance of teaching myself enough about
> behaviorism to give myself a useful insight into the same?
> 
> Stay well,
> 
> John.

Ah, well, John, schooling ain't the same as eddication.

Read the classic texts by Skinner (he overstates his case, but he had 
issues with "soul" etc on account of his religious raising), and read a 
few articles describing actual research. If you want just an "informed 
opinion", that should be enough.

Despite what Lester et al. say, behaviorism explains a lot; radical 
behaviorism is very careful to set limits on those explanations. Some 
people think these limits mean that RB denies the value of attempting to 
explanation outside those limits. I don't think so. It just claims that 
wt present we don't have the tools and methods to go beyond. Note that 
neurology and molecular biology appear to be going beyond those limts, 
but they don't. As Glen says "physiology mediates." That mediation is 
beginning to be analysed, but IMO that analysis is atill at the stage of 
gathering observations that may be useful. Where biology was in the 
17-1800s, IOW. Dawrin's genius was to recognise a pattern or two and 
construct a theory - a theory that subseqeunet research has filled in 
but not refuted. We don't have such a theory of behaviour yet, but IMO 
the behaviorist stance (which says that the environment is an essential 
part of such a theory) will be a central feature.

HTH


PS I'm a lousy typist., so I make typos, but I don'ty make errors., Hah!