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 Why do you suppose Strict Behaviorism is obsolete?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