death of the mind.
wwolfkir at sympatico.ca
Sun Jul 18 08:06:23 EST 2004
John Hasenkam wrote:
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:bPSJc.27499$TB3.1137662 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> 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,
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.
PS I'm a lousy typist., so I make typos, but I don'ty make errors., Hah!
More information about the Neur-sci