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 Why do you suppose Strict Behaviorism is obsolete?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