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.
> 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  <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  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.
> or how the extensional stance requires one to
> understand the scope of the empirical science of behaviour, ie Behaviour
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.