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