Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism

From: John Hasenkam (johnh_at_faraway.)
Date: 10/27/04 

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:01:08 +1000

"alan jones" <ob2@freeukFromSpam.com> wrote in message
news:e4gfd.193$%X2.37@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:417e0550.25856054@netnews.att.net...
> >
> > Bareknuckles Behaviorism
> > ------------
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:03:22 +1000, "John Hasenkam" <johnh@faraway.>
> > in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >
> > >You first learn to break your habits, then you can learn to break other
> > >peoples' habits.
> >
> > There is a certain mentality that lends itself to the desire to break
> > the behavior of other people to their own stereotypes. Most eventually
> > become behaviorists. Some become schoolteachers. A few become both.
> >
> > Regards - Lester

Clearly the lad has never been married.
Below
Straw man, Beh never pretends to understand the brain, it is a science of
behavior. Get it?

> Behaviouralism in my view has less to do with science, as the ethos
> of superficial judgement which follows its acceptance. Because this
> is accepted as science, it is accepted in life.
>
> Never mind the claims made by this science, whereby limited [simplified]
> experiences might lead to a measure of prediction, the real boom of
> this science follows, when like anything we grow to depend on, it is
> supported by the wider culture, then judged a success just by virtue
> of society's interdependence. As success looks to follow success, so
> it is adapted by other disciplines. The truth is behaviouralism is a
> black box science. It makes no attempt look inside the box. Not
> all the questions that could be asked, will be asked.
>
> Because this science enshrines its ignorance in its ethics, it makes it
> easy for other disciplines to adopt the same. There is also something
> about this observational judgment which detaches the observer from
> that which he observers. This is fine if non sentient life is judged, but
> when the when the observed is of essential the same intellect, it
> flounders. This is after all about human judgment as well as human
> behaviour. Can such a science allow for the same complexity of
> thought in the observed, as the observer? Is 'knowledge of' the only
> criteria for judgment.
>
> The observer sees what he is capable of seeing, he makes his
> correlations between cause and effect bound by human error.
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... Science deals with observable, verifiable, identifiable phenomina. ... source and the observer and as it is impossible for the observer to ... the +/- operator when you are computing speeds as seen in the other FoR. ... Lorentz for the aether that Lorentz was trying to recessitate after MMX ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... ethos of this 'science' as his ideology. ... forces on the observer a kind of bureaucracy of observation. ... What did Skinner ... Stimulus and Response." ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Does expansion predict a maximum redshift?
    ... Science has progressed beyond Leibniz what passed for science then ... science has been catching up to Leibniz: ... Frames of reference simply say "This is what the observer sees". ... That is true for Monadic hypothesis. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism
    ... >>peoples' habits. ... Behaviouralism in my view has less to do with science, ... about this observational judgment which detaches the observer from ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... ethos of this 'science' as his ideology. ... forces on the observer a kind of bureaucracy of observation. ... What did Skinner champion as the most important dependent variable? ... Discuss this in terms of his paper "On the Generic Nature of Stimulus and Response." ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)