Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 09/14/04 

Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:06:50 GMT

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:58:12 -0400, Wolf Kirchmeir
<wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Daryl McCullough wrote:
>
>> David Longley says...
>>
>>
>>>No, *we* actually do know what we are talking about when we talk about
>>>"intelligence"
>>
>>
>> Then why not answer Allan's question? He wants to know what the behaviorist
>> concept of intelligence is.
>>
>> --
>> Daryl McCullough
>> Ithaca, NY
>
>There is no "behaviorist concept" of intelligence.

Then why exactly do we need behaviorism? To tell other people which
experimental tests they can perform to ascertain the characteristics
and properties of concepts behaviorism denies?

> There are many
>concepts of intelligence. Behaviorism can supply tests, or objective
>measures, or critical analyses, or whatever. (Just as experimental
>physics can supply tests, measures, analyses, etc, of the entities
>proposed by theoretical physics.)

Behaviorism can scarcely supply tests for concepts it doesn't have,
doesn't understand, and yet flatly denies. Glen has said behaviorism
is philosophy not science. He has also said behaviorism is the science
of behavior. I'm not exactly sure which experimental tests he relies
on for these rather ambivalent judgments. Perhaps you could clear all
this up before you pontificate on what behaviorism does or doesn't do.

>If, for example, you want to say that "the ability to learn" is (at
>least a part of) "intelligence," behaviourism can provide measures of
>learning. It can do more: it can specify what kinds of learning can take
>place in what organisms in what situations. It can do more than that: it
>can tell you how to cause that learning.
>
>Unfortunately, a lot of people dismiss these achievements of behaviorism
>as "just animal training."

People dismiss claims of behaviorism to knowledge of concepts it
doesn't have. If the consequences of that denial are just animal
training, (no quotes, see how easy it is), it's probably because
that's all it is. If behaviorism wishes to measure other experimental
variables related to intelligence and mental effects, it would help to
have some understanding of what these concepts mean.

>Try the question in other contexts: What is the Freudian concept of
>intelligence? The Jungian? The Adlerian? What is the concept of
>intelligence underlying IQ tests? SATs? What is the concept of
>intelligence assumed in the teacher's comment "That's a good question?"
>What is the meaning of "intelligences" when people talk about "multiple
>intelligences?" What do the promoters of "Intelligent Design" mean by
>the adjective? Why are people surprised when an autist displays certain
>skills? Why do we pay people more to do what machines can do better
>(e.g, book keeping), and less for what machines do worse, if they can do
>it at all (eg. janitorial work)? Why do children (and many adults) think
>that to know a lot of odd facts is "smart?" What's the concept of
>intelligence that leads to the judgement that both Edison and Einstein
>were a geniuses (though "not in the same way")? Etc, etc etc.
>
>Therefore: You tell me what you mean by "intelligent", and I'll tell you
>whether I think you've described an observable, measurable feature or
>not. I'll also, if I can, show what inconsistencies or implications lie
>buried in your concept.

Sure and we'll all go back to grade school so you can teach us how to
evade answering children's questions on your belief in god. What, do
you imagine we need behaviorists to teach us how to suck eggs?
Teachers are supposedly there to provide answers and not just to teach
evasion. If you can't explain a concept and can't figure it out and
explain it to students, then why would they need you at all?

At least your position is more sophisticated than David's. He just
refuses to address the question asked whereas all you want to do is
determine which kinds of experimental observables we can use without a
clue as to what is being measured. David's position of denial is
somewhat more tenable intellectually. But then behaviorists have no
concept of the intellect to consider. So we'll just have to rely on
observable measures of sophistry, whatever they may be. And if we have
any difficulty defining those measures, I'm sure behaviorists, full of
solicitude for all the wandering and errant children, will be there to
help them find their way out of the wilderness.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1
    ... >> Daryl McCullough ... Behaviorism can supply tests, or objective ... it can specify what kinds of learning can take ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1
    ... Daryl McCullough wrote: ... Behaviorism can supply tests, or objective ... it can specify what kinds of learning can take ... a lot of people dismiss these achievements of behaviorism ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... vocabulary of Behaviorism. ... If I spoke to you in terms of lexical closures, ... analysis textbook like Mazur's "Learning and Behavior." ... GF: Enjoyed chatting with you. ...
    (sci.cognitive)