Glen M. Sizemore wrote in message ...
>Sergio Navega:
>>"...how to explain operant conditioning..."
>>Bravo, sir, bravo!
>Glen
>
I'm doubtful about your intention here, if it is
just an ironic comment or a sincere agreement with
the difficulty of the task. If it is just an irony,
I may even understand it, but only if you're confusing
'operant conditioning' as being an explanation,
instead of being what it is, just an evidence with
a fancy name.
Behaviorists frequently confuse both, thinking that
there's nothing more to do after naming evidences
and devising laws. But science only grows if its
laws go beyond mere predictive power (after all, we
can predict very well what happens because of gravity;
however we don't have a damn clue about how to explain
it). It's necessary to develop explanations which are
reasonably intertwined and coherent with other theories,
from other fields.
But I guess you should've noticed that what I really
proposed was a bit different:
"...how to explain operant conditioning *and*
systematicity/generativity simultaneously..."
This is the kind of question that seems interesting
to investigate on a wider approach than the purely
behavioristic methodology.
Regards,
Sergio Navega.
