Enlightened Empiricism, Extensionalism and the Control of Operant Behavior

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Wed Nov 3 18:03:40 EST 2004


In article <BOaid.52352$R05.30303 at attbi_s53>, patty 
<pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>David Longley wrote:
>> Part III link:
>> 
>><http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=QFJfeZHSY8cAFwYY@longley.demon.co>>.u
>> k>
>>  Part II covered what some might consider to be a controversial view 
>>of  the basics of avoidance behaviour in the context of the control of 
>>operant behaviour.
>>
>
>Err ... yes ... we humans do avoid the control of our behavior ... i 
>think it has something to do with why we are so good at surviving.

Find out what "avoidance behaviour" is!

The above is yet another example of your inability to read what's 
written without corrupting it for all the reasons I've gone to great 
lengths to explicate. Nevertheless, as usual, you blunder on in the same 
old clumsy way creating mayhem. Until you learn to do otherwise, all 
you'll produce is thought disordered epistemological anarchism (which is 
why threads degenerate into meaningless, off-topic drivel more often 
than not).
>
>
>> The following put a cautionary "gloss" on what's infected and 
>>corrupted  behavioural science for far too long under the guise of 
>>"cognitivism".  If anyone thinks this is merely an academic matter, 
>>they should look  more carefully at the links at the end, and some of 
>>the series I've  provided before (along with a considerable amount of 
>>other material on  this issue (mainly to comp.ai.philosophy) since early 1995).
>> 
>><http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MxBYT7I587eBFw8u@longley.demon.co>>.u
>> k>
>>  The difficulty which most folk face when trying to make sense of 
>>this is  that they don't understand how enlightened empiricism differs 
>>from  classic empiricism
>
>From [1] <http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_mar2004.htm>
>""
>As an empiricist - one who thinks all knowledge claims are justified by 
>experience - Quine was committed to the role of sensory experience in 
>knowledge. But since a single mind has no fixed anchor to halt inner 
>experience from 'drifting', Quine argued that in a community, drift 
>would be arrested; we are not apt to drift in the same direction. Thus 
>publicly reinforced language - and not subjective ideas - could check 
>the tendency for drift. 'Safety in numbers' rather than subjective 
>certainty would provide Quine's key to knowledge.
>""
>
>In other words (mine) enlightened empiricism draws the experiential 
>bubble [2] in a different place than classic empiricism draws it.  It 
>draws it out in the culture, not around the skin of the individual.  In 
>my opinion, a better cut.
>
>[2] <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=experiential+bubble>
>
>> or how the extensional stance requires one to  understand the scope 
>>of the empirical science of behaviour, ie Behaviour Analysis.
>
>Interperting the world from the point of view of what we learn from 
>operating Skinner boxes is a bit too limiting for my tastes.
>
>I suggest we trim newsgroups.

And I suggest you refrain from posting unless you can show that you can 
really grasp what the poster is writing about rather than what you think 
it's about. You suffer from a deranged liberals' disorder where you 
think your opinions matter regardless of whether you have any 
understanding of what's being said. You don't, and you post naive 
rubbish as a consequence. You won't even be told that you don't 
understand, which just compounds your idiocy.

You translate nearly all that you read into "valley girl" without even 
knowing it. This has been my criticism of others such as Michaels, Zick 
etc. They can't see what they are doing either, and for the same 
reasons. They do not look closely enough at what they are doing.
-- 
David Longley



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list