Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Science & Philosophy vs Rosenism (Skinnerist Moral Philosophy)
Message-ID: <2039@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 21:56:01 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.2039
Posted: Mon Nov  4 21:56:01 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 04:27:57 EST
References: <1993@pyuxd.UUCP> <2063@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 24

>>>     Why do you suppose Strict Behaviorism is obsolete?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.

Then where IS the grand debunking, Charles?  Without it, there's no wishful
thinking involved.

> 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.

You, Charles, I never look to for "credit" for my "rationalizations".
-- 
"Mrs. Peel, we're needed..."			Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr