Re: The Hard Problem for Behaviorists

From: JXStern (JXSternChangeX2R_at_gte.net)
Date: 10/09/04 

Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 00:43:11 GMT

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 22:45:43 +0100, David Longley
<David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Philosophy of mind doesn't come down to anything, it either makes a
>>contribution on its own, or it doesn't.
>>
>I don't think you understand what I said.

Sure I understand what you said - the Earth revolves around David
Longley. See?

> When I say it comes down to
>empirical behavioural science I'm telling you what it practically comes
>down to. That means it is what we do in those areas, and in my case that
>comes down to what people do as much as any other animals. If you look
>more closely into what I am talking about there, the referent is
>forensic or clinical practice - in all sorts of domains. You simply do
>not know what I am talking about, and I couldn't care two hoots about
>whether some ivory tower academic philosopher or "cognitive" or computer
>scientist agrees or not - they probably just don't appreciate the scope
>of what I'm talking about if they dispute what I am telling you/them.
>This comes down to my having access to what's always the most important
>resource scientists ever have - *data*.

Data is no better without theory, than theory is without data.

The idea that behaviorism or positivism is theory-free or
theory-neutral is childish. It is a theory, and a very weak one.

J.