Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Science & Philosophy vs Rosenism (Skinnerist Moral Philosophy)
Message-ID: <2063@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Nov-85 01:00:30 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2063
Posted: Sat Nov  2 01:00:30 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 04:42:14 EST
References: <1993@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 19

In article <1993@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>>     Why do you suppose Strict Behaviorism is obsolete?

>Because the bulk of psychology department intelligentsia find the notions
>repugnant, and have done their best to rid psychology curricula of the
>abominable notions!  (Otherwise, wouldn't we have heard the grand
>debunking round the world?)

Well, those of us who read even so lowly a scientific journal as S. American
are aware that Strict Behaviorism is basically a dead theory.  Rich's
speculation in the first sentence is quite obviously a piece of that wishful
thinking he so roundly deplores, since his accusation is obviously
unfalsifiable, and indeed bears all the marks of a "conspiracy theory"
explanation.  If one knows any psychology faculty, one quickly learns that
pschology types have earned their reputation for fighting over matters such
as these.  So I can hardly credit Rich's rationalization with any truth.

Charley Wingate