Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Science & Philosophy vs Rosenism (Skinnerist Moral Philosophy)
Message-ID: <630@spar.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 12:35:08 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.630
Posted: Thu Oct 31 12:35:08 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 12:40:17 EST
References: <1663@pyuxd.UUCP> <1820@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1907@pyuxd.UUCP> <619@spar.UUCP> <1993@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 136

>>>Hmmm, this is an intriguing proposition.  The internal state, having gotten
>>>to be the way it is (with indoctrination and conditioning leading that
>>>internal state into various forms)..
>
>>     But does past history, in fact, determine `present state'? 
>
>Of course.

    WeAretheRobots
    WeAretheRobots
    WeAretheRobots
    WeAretheRobots
    WeAretheRobots
    WeAretheRobots
    WeAretheRobots
    ...

>>     If a great deal of recent scientific research and theory in biology,
>>     chemistry, and physics is true, your pet behaviorist theories
>>     must be tossed into the Humean flames!
>
>By Hume-an beings?

    Frankly, Rich, I'd think you'd like Hume a great deal. He was one of the
    first philosophers who was successful at systematically doubting
    everything, including science. Besides labeling causality a superstition
    (albeit more reasonable than most), he doubted religion, morality, mind --
    everything! 
     
    After over 200 years, his treatment of causality and empirical induction
    is amazingly valid. His positions on morality and mind are likewise
    starkly modern and free of theistic or subjective arguments.
   
    BTW, the `Humean flames' refer to one of his most memorable quotations:

     Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?
     NO.
     Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact
     and existence?
     NO.
     Commit it to flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and
     illusion.

    Hume no doubt believed that past history determined present state
    (incidentally, he did not believe in free will and offered determinstic
    arguments similar to yours).  However, in his time, there was no
    empirical evidence otherwise. Today, the strong forms of determinism all
    require metaphysical `hidden variables', and even then, the resulting
    determinism bears little resemblance to old fashioned causal determinism,
    which has PROVABLY been tossed into the same flames Newton's absolute
    space and time.

    Bohr's minimal indeterministic interpretation carries the least
    metaphysical baggage, and I suspect Hume would have endorsed it over the
    `metaphysical' deterministic theories you apparently prefer.

>>     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?)

    It must be a conspiracy then, among those in psychology, biology,
    biochemistry, and quantum mechanics to suppress the poor martyred
    Skinnerists. It'd sound great in the National Enquirer.

>>     SMASH SKINNERISM!!
>
>Why not just reply to all my articles in the future with the following:
>
>Rosen is wrong because he believes in Skinnerism, which I don't like,
>in determinism, which I also don't like, etc. and thus he is completely
>and utterly wrong.  Nahh!  

    But Skinnerism CONTRADICTS modern science. At best, any argument
    which is based on Skinnerism is based on little better than faith
    in the literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Even belief in
    a Spinozan supreme being at least does not contradict science.
    (although, no doubt, Hume would have tossed God into those same flames!)

    And whereas Skinner's dogma on scientific issues is often merely wrong,
    his grandiose moral, philosophical, and political issues, based is it
    is on the most discredited of his scientific presuppositions, betrays an
    analytical disability of almost Velikovskian microencephalism. Skinner's
    specialist mentality was simply unable to comprehend anything outside of
    his tiny Skinnerbox brainset.

    Please note -- I have no more quarrel with behaviorism as a useful
    methodology than I do, with, say, Christian Science faith healing.  All
    approaches that do not propose evil things (such as killing people) and
    stand a reasonable chance of producing results should be encouraged. In
    fact, I highly respect his findings where they are properly seen under
    the light of his restricted methodology, just as I accept the results,
    if not the entire theory behind, holistic medicine.

    It is the intolerant quality of Skinnerian behaviorism, a blight whose
    strict dogma stunted all other kinds of psychological research right up
    until the 50's that I thoroughly detest.  For decades, any scientific
    attempt to analyze mental phenomena on their own terms was labeled
    pseudoscience.

    Most appalling of all is that his lunacy should has become a pop
    religion for those who, apparently, would like to have all questions
    answered in a single set of scriptures. Only Fundamentalist Christians
    and Ayn-Randian `Libertarians' have less ability to think, being fed
    incredibly narrow minded pabulum that purports to be a cure for all
    possible problems!

    In summary, I dislike Skinner's dogma because:

    (1) It is in conflict with nearly everything in science since 1930.
    (2) It effectively barred scientific advance along paths that
        have been extremely effective (eg- Chomsky's transformational
	grammar with mentalistic notions such as `deep structure')
    (3) His incompetent proposals for grandiose social and moral
        codes in which those of his specialty would be in total control.
	He would have brute-forced his anti-free-will doctrine onto
	society BY BRAINWASHING in order to `make' his theories become
	`true', had he been given the opportunity!
    (4) Many fine people, like you, have been brainwished to the point where
        they are unwilling and unable to openly examine other competing
	theories. In your case, entire semantic dimensions of your
	vocabulary have been excised! For example, in your vocabulary:

        mind = free will = soul = responsibility = autonomy =
	deus ex machina = {blame/praise}-worthiness = irrationality =
	antiscience = the evil of {religion,Nazism...}

     On the other hand, I do agree with his distaste for old time
     morality and terms like guilt, sin, punishment, and so on. Sadly,
     his shoddy thinking did much to discredit his good ideas.

    SMASH SKINNERISM!!

-michael