Russ sayeth: "They [behaviorists] seem unwilling to ask how the entity being reinforced works so that they can explain how the reinforcer works. That just seems like bad science."
Uhm.... weird assertion. Lets say that I am a digestive biologist, and you ask me to explain the atomic structure underlying differences between stomach and intestinal walls. Am I not justified in telling you that you have asked a great question that is simply not in my area of expertise. Am I not justified in telling you that there are people who specialize in answering such questions, that they are molecular biologists, and that they work down the hall? Would you really tell me that I cannot talk intelligently about the ability of the stomach wall to resist acid without knowledge of the atomic structures underlying acid-resistance? Would you really tell me that digestive biology seems like bad science? I doubt you would tell me any of those things. Why should psychology be different? There are perfectly good people who study the relevant animal innards. They are physiologists and neuro-biologists. They have offices down the hall. Their work is fascinating and I like to hear their talks. There are some people who work cross-disciplines. Some of them do cool work, others do crap work, and still others do cool work that they explain in crap ways. What more do you want me to say? --------- Also, I told you that we know a lot about what makes something a reinforcer. Let us pick an arbitrary set of neutral stimuli, say a card with vertical lines. I can make a rat such that the vertical lines reinforce the rat's behavior. THE THINGS I DO TO THE RAT explain why the vertical lines act as a reinforcer. When you ask "why" the vertical lines reinforce the rat, I will answer by telling you about how I put the rat through such-and-such procedure.* Thus I WILL have explained why vertical lines reinforce this rat. Again, this explains not only the origins of the behavioral phenomenon, but also the origins of the concurrent neural phenomenon that are a component part of the process in question. If you asked why the volcano in iceland blew its top, and I told you that it blew because the rocks at the top of the mountain flew into the air, you would stare at me like I was an idiot. Why? Because you asked me to explain something that happened, and I answered by merely describing back a part of the thing to be explained. Similarly, all neuronal happenings are part of "the thing to be explained" when you are explaining reinforcement. Eric *Most likely my story will involve repeatedly pairing the vertical lines with food, but there are other options available. Heck, I can make a rat that does not find food reinforcing. I can even make a rat that is born not finding food reinforcing. Alas, those rats won't live very long.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
