|
Post by maximus on Mar 23, 2012 7:53:46 GMT 10
From Wikipedia: "Perhaps Skinner's best known critic, Noam Chomsky, published a review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior two years after it was published. The review (1959) became better known than the book itself.[4] Chomsky's review has been credited with launching the cognitive movement in psychology and other disciplines. Skinner, who rarely responded directly to critics, never formally replied to Chomsky's critique. Many years later, Kenneth MacCorquodale's reply[52] was endorsed by Skinner. Chomsky also reviewed Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity, using the same basic motives as his Verbal Behavior review. Among Chomsky's criticisms were that Skinner's laboratory work could not be extended to humans, that when it was extended to humans it represented 'scientistic' behavior attempting to emulate science but which was not scientific, that Skinner was not a scientist because he rejected the hypothetico-deductive model of theory testing, and that Skinner had no science of behavior.[53] The fields of Relational Frame Theory and ACT Therapy are currently attempting to analyze most of these suggestions." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 23, 2012 8:24:57 GMT 10
I don't think Bro. Alan meant to eulogize Skinner. Rather, to me, he was pointing out Bro. Brandt's error in presenting Skinner and other "radical behaviorists" as somehow being opposed to cognitive psychology, when they led the push for its establishment.
Perhaps this is a bit like demonizing Darwin for his gradualism notion and for his not anticipating Gould's theory of "punctuated equilibrium," when overall he was leading the way on what was essentially the right track.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 23, 2012 8:28:31 GMT 10
Among Chomsky's criticisms were that Skinner's laboratory work could not be extended to humans... Good point. Although wandering through the poker machine rooms of different clubs and hotels, we might be forgiven for suspecting otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 23, 2012 11:31:43 GMT 10
They are opposed, according to people that were there, to cognitive psychology because it did not feed the behaviorist agenda. It was an agenda. They did dust him off on occasion because he is an important part of our history and systems that should studied and his person should be respected as should other luminaries in our past. Being wrong under current information does not demean the hard work that he put in. Much like Newton is still held in high regard even in light of recent findings. Newton's work is still taught in physics classes just as Skinner is still taught in psychology classes. We stand on the shoulders of giants and those giants deserve respect. I sometimes wonder what he could have done with the information that is available now.
You mentioned Darwin in this light and that is entirely appropriate because it fits.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 23, 2012 17:43:54 GMT 10
Man is born as a freak of nature, being within nature and yet transcending it. He has to find principles of action and decision-making which replace the principles of instincts. He has to have a frame of orientation which permits him to organize a consistent picture of the world as a condition for consistent actions. He has to fight not only against the dangers of dying, starving, and being hurt, but also against another danger which is specifically human: that of becoming insane. In other words, he has to protect himself not only against the danger of losing his life but also against the danger of losing his mind Erich Seligmann Fromm (Born this day 1900)
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 24, 2012 7:38:48 GMT 10
You appear to be dismissive of the very crux of the debate. Genes are expressed (or not) as protein structures. Where these give rise to behaviours they are necessarily specific, not vague or variously expressed propensities, values, goals, objectives, etc.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 25, 2012 11:56:46 GMT 10
I am dismissive of political agendas masquerading as science.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 25, 2012 18:08:02 GMT 10
I am dismissive of political agendas masquerading as science. As am I. Especially of theories without relevant evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2012 7:16:35 GMT 10
I am dismissive of political agendas masquerading as science. There are politics of reaction as well as politics of action.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 26, 2012 9:49:45 GMT 10
I wouldn't call three people a society, at what point does it become a society? Does being a member of society negate the individual? In any case an individual does exist without society, society does not exist without individuals. There is no such thing in a civilized society as self-support. In a state of society so barbarous as not even to know family cooperation, each individual may possibly support himself, though even then for a part of his life only; but from the moment that men begin to live together, and constitute even the rudest of society, self-support becomes impossible. As men grow more civilized, and the subdivision of occupations and services is carried out, a complex mutual dependence becomes the universal rule Edward Bellamy (Born this day 1850)
|
|