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.
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 or how the extensional stance requires one to
understand the scope of the empirical science of behaviour, ie Behaviour
Analysis.
--
David Longley
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm
