Questions on the Nature of memory, personality, etc.

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 13 10:00:01 EST 2004


On Thu, 13 May 2004 12:27:58 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
<gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> in sci.cognitive wrote:

>RM: I agree with you that especially in the field of cognitive psychology
>big words are drawn from poor experiments.
>
>
>
>GS: But the real problem with cognitive "science" is that its conceptual
>foundation is laughable. But only a very small minority of scientists are
>laughing.
>
I think we can take it as given that you consider cognitive science's
conceptual foundation laughable. The only issue worth considering is
why and whether your laughter constitutes a judgment of any scientific
merit? If only a small minority of scientists are laughing does that
of itself imply that you're right and they're wrong?

If laughter is a relevant metric of scientific merit, I find that many
more professionals in behavior analysis laugh at the naive materialism
of behaviorism's conceptual foundations than laugh at what you term
the naive animism of cognitive science.

An issue of more relevance I think would be what it would take to make
you stop laughing? Is there any criterion of scientific merit that
would make you consider that you are wrong? Or is it just so much
philosophical pretention at the conceptual foundations of behaviorism
that makes you think you're right? Just so much scientific prejudice?
It's time to get past Glen's laughter and get down to the root of the
laughter of other professionals in behavior analysis. At least that
would explain why they're laughing at behaviorism and you're not.

Regards - Lester




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list