Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1

From: Sergio Navega (snavega_at_intelliwise.com)
Date: 09/21/04 

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:00:03 -0300

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> escreveu na mensagem
news:L57ZxFJ6kDUBFwtU@longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <10l0b9q5va5nv7a@news20.forteinc.com>, Sergio Navega
> <snavega@intelliwise.com> writes
> >"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
> >news:20040918120112.151$08@news.newsreader.com...
> >> [big snip...]
> >> BTW, I have asked you many times to describe what
> >> "scientific progress" is. I have asserted that cognitive "science"
fills
> >> journals, but that that is not necessarily "progress."
> >
> >You haven't "asked many times" for me to describe what is scientific
> >progress. You have asked me about what I think "abstractions" are.
> >I have already answered that at length, and more than once (I had even
> >changed the title of one post), but you've chosen to ignore it. You
> >don't seem to be looking for a constructive discussion, frequently
> >resorting to calling people "stupid", "arrogant", "idiot" (although
> >you're not alone in that; interestingly, the other two posters that
> >often employ the same tactic are also behaviorists). Perhaps my
> >writing style annoys you. I can do little to change that, as English
> >is my second language (and I don't live in an english-speaking country).
>
> No, it's your ignorance and arrogance that accounts for our use of words
> like "idiot" and "stupid" to describe what you are doing. I use those
> terms to try to jolt some sense into these exchanges - ie in order to
> make the point that there is something fundamentally wrong with what you
> (and others here) often say. You get matters wrong out of ignorance
> (hence "idiot") and you won't be corrected. If you actually got your
> facts right you'd probably get a more reasonable response to what you
> write, but that's what's at the root of what you are doing wrong. You
> are presuming, and you are, basically, just wrong. This is not a matter
> of disagreeing over something, it's a direct criticism of your poor
> grasp of what is actually done in behaviour analysis *and* cognitive
> psychology - subjects we *are* qualified to talk about.

It has been often suggested to you that you confound "not understanding"
with *disagreement*. For instance, I have read "Two Dogmas.." and I
don't think his arguments are relevant to the empirical work of cognitive
science. Should I be considered an idiot for not agreeing with Quine?
If that's the case, then add to the list of idiots Grice, Strawson,
Putnam and Dennett, to name just a few.

> >You seem to be looking for a "cognitive punching bag" to distill the
> >criticisms and anger that behaviorist positions have against the
> >science that is, today, mainstream. And notice this: I'm *not* claimimg
> >that because it is mainstream, it is right (that's another fantasy
> >you've concocted). NO. Can you read that?
>
> I certainly can't.

Coming from you, I wouldn't expect it to be different ;-)

> That's exactly what you are doing, then you're making
> out you aren't!
>
> > What one may say is that
> >mainstream sciences are usually threatened by *new* and potentially
> >broader approaches, not by vanishing strategies of the past.
> >Behaviorism is the past (mysteriously surviving just like
> >psychoanalysis), and it is not a threat to the empirically and
> >theoretically sound work that's being done nowadays.
> >
> "empiriclaly and theoretically sound".... you must be joking!
>
> You've already been told why this is false - you just can't grasp it.
>
> What you write simply suggests (strongly) to me (at least) that you have
> not formally studied these disciplines and that you are in no position
> to accurately judge what the truth of the matter is. If you any formal
> training in these matters, perhaps you'll enlighten me. Failing that, I
> suggest you seriously ask yourself a) why you're being challenged b) why
> you're arguing.

If you're so curious about me, start google and search for my name,
but that's irrelevant to the discussion of ideas here at c.a.p.
Your line of reasoning to demonstrate that cognitive science is
empirically unsound is to point to Quine's paper, of a philosophical
nature. That's odd, don't you think? Perhaps you should consider that
only evidences have the power to refute an empirical proposition.
Do you want to show that cognitive science is flawed? Just present
some evidences that goes against what is being proposed. You'll do
us a service.

> > "You can't change anything by fighting or resisting it.
> > You change something by making it obsolete through superior
> > methods". Buckminster Fuller.
> >
> >Sergio Navega.
>
> "You are an ignorant, arrogant, deluded, idiotic, con-man - who won't
> listen."
>
> Isn't it time you looked into why someone might say that rather than
> just dismissing it as a partisan "ad hominem"?

I have learned that some behaviorists are easily irritated when
contradicted, no matter if the argument is good or bad. I've been
called of much worse things, when discussing with mystical freaks,
religious fanatics or pseudo-scientist maniacs in other fora. Their
verbal abuse is not something that will lead me to consider seriously
their ideas. Behaviorists are ones that seem to want to enlarge the
list of people that prefer to go to the personal attack, instead of
keeping the focus on attacking the ideas. Some of them answer in
a ludicrous demonstration of emotional immaturity. Perhaps radical
behaviorism is bad for one's mental health. Cool off, Longley ;-)

Sergio Navega.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1
    ... You get matters wrong out of ignorance ... >> to accurately judge what the truth of the matter is. ... >Your line of reasoning to demonstrate that cognitive science is ... Behaviorists are ones that seem to want to enlarge the ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... "David Longley" escreveu na mensagem ... >>The trouble with behaviorists is that they refuse to develop their ... >>theories past the operant conditioning level. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: A theory of beliefs
    ... >>private languages). ... In what sense would they be meaningless to behaviorists? ... >forgotten that all behaviorists are indoctrinated into folk psychology ... David Longley ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A theory of beliefs
    ... >>private languages). ... In what sense would they be meaningless to behaviorists? ... >forgotten that all behaviorists are indoctrinated into folk psychology ... David Longley ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Behaviorism vs. evolutionary psychology
    ... Perhaps innate causes are not studied by behaviorists except ... up I think you have to take them with some caution no matter ... mathematics that can explain some things such as the stripes ... subjected to natural selection. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)