Those links in the previous post don't get you directly to the pages. For the summary first click on the link, then on the bottom of page is a link that reads "Chomsky". Click on that link and once there scroll down to find the simmary. At the very bottom of the page, not the frame, you'll find a link to the full Chomsky's critique of Skinners book, "Verbal Behavior"
. On Jan 4, 1:46 pm, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 2, 11:31 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > Skinner is an > > > empiricist with rational tendencies; Chomsky is a rationalist with a > > shaky empirical basis. > > I enjoyed the the little I read by Sknner in his book "About > Behaviorism," because his philosophy seemed to me to be heavily > grounded in empiricism. Unfortunately, I have not read his book > "Verbal Behavior." I have looked at summaries of Chomsky's cricism and > just found an online version of the full essay. I plan to read it. > Here is the link for anyone else who cares to look at it or even read > it. > > http://www3.niu.edu/acad/psych/Millis/History/2003/cogrev.htm > > From the summaries that I read, it seemed that although Skinner was > typically grounded in observation about other types of behavior, his > ideas about how language was acquired and used seems to ignore obvious > observations. These reasons are not herd to understand. Unless the > summaries do not reflect Chomsky's criticism accurately, or Chomsky is > making straw man arguments against Skinner, then I have to side with > Chomsky on this one, since he is the empiracist here, while Skiiner > has somehow missed or else intentionally ignored certain aspects of > language. Here is one summary of Chomsky's review. If I find that does > not reflect the full review accurately, then I will make a post on > that. > > http://www3.niu.edu/acad/psych/Millis/History/2003/cogrev.htm > > In 1958, Bernard Bloch, editor of Language, asked Chomsky to write a > review of B.F. Skinner’s new book, Verbal Behavior, which had been > published in 1957. Chomsky’s review, published in 1959, was highly > critical. He argued that there is more to language learning than > imitation and reinforcement. Important observations he offered were: > > 1.) There are an infinite number of sentences in any language; all > possible sentences would be impossible to learn through imitation and > reinforcement. > > 2.) Children acquire language quickly and effortlessly, and at > identical stages across cultures. > > 3.) Words like goed, thinked, and eated are not spoken by parents; > instead, children say these things because they over-generalize rules, > such as this one for past tense. > > Chomsky asserted that children learn the rules of language, not just > specific responses, as Skinner had proposed. He asserted that human > beings are born biologically equipped to learn a language, and > proposed his theory of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) – an inborn > mechanism or process that facilitates the learning of a language. > According to the theory, the LAD consists of brain structures and > neural wiring that are unique to human beings. In this nativist > theory, humans are born with the ability to > discriminate among phonemes, to fast-map morphemes, and to acquire the > rules of syntax, and more. > > On Jan 2, 11:31 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I read the Jerry Fodor "How the mind works: What we still don't > > know." > > > In response to Fodor's statement, "Chomsky's reply was, in essense, > > 'Don't be silly. Our behavior is characteristically caused by our > > mental states; therefore, a serious psychology must be a theory about > > what mental states exist and what roles they play in causing our > > behavior. You can put gas in the tank because you believe that, if > > you don't, the car will grind to a stop, and you don't want the car to > > do so. How could anyone sane believe otherwise?" > > > My response: > > > 1. Don't be silly Fodor. Skinner wrote an entire chapter on covert > > behavior (behaviors inside the skin) and verbal behavior (including > > internal statements to yourself). Please, scientifically defined > > these vague mental states that you mentioned--the vagueness is the > > heart of the issue, that is, the accessiblity of these mental states > > that you enjoy speculating about and passing these concepts off as > > science. You obviously have never read Skinner extensively and are > > basing your arguments on what Chomsky wrote. You mentioned Newtonian > > physics on p. 87; therefore, making a statement such as behavior is > > "caused by mental states" is inexcusable. After Newton, scientists > > slowed down the unfruitful practice of such ideas as claiming that oak > > wood burns hotter than pine wood because oakwood has more of the > > mental state called anger (or oakwood is a more angry wood; or the > > "essense" of oakwood is hotter). These mental states are just > > "essenses" of complex biological organisms and Newton challenged that > > unfruitful way of thinking. By the same token, scientists should not > > decribe the aggressive behaviors of an animals (human animals too) by > > statements of vague "anger" essenses but rather by explaining the > > phyiological phenomonon (through biology) and environmental context > > (through behavior analysis) which provokes or evokes that response. > > Your "gasoline" [mental state] is ill-defined, vague, and "explanatory > > fiction"--to borrow a Skinner term. > > > 2. Skinner is not behavior analysis or behaviorism. He is just ONE > > of many behavior analysts. Skinner himself acknowledged this while he > > existed. He didn't even take credit for writing his own autobiography > > that was just a product of the organism called B.F. Skinner and the > > environment during his lifetime and environment that evolved life that > > led to this structure called B.F. Skinner; he (according to himself) > > had no choice writing his autobiography because he had no free will to > > do otherwise. To me, that is a statement of humility. Some people > > reject that statement because some of those people state if that is > > true, people will have not accountability or personal responsibility > > and the social fabric of society unravel. Consequences both postive > > and negative; both inside and outside the organism (not accountability > > or personal responsiblity) are more relevant to the control of > > behavior. > > > 3. You should read some of Skinner's books and understand his > > arguments and data before you criticize those arguments and the data. > > Then you should re-read Chomsky's response to Skinner. Skinner is an > > empiricist with rational tendencies; Chomsky is a rationalist with a > > shaky empirical basis. > > > I wasn't very impressed with his reasons nor his arguments nor his > > knowledge of Chomsky or Skinner. I would write more but lack the > > time. > > > Jason > > > On Jan 2, 10:42 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi y'all - I've printed out the first paper and I'll try to read it > > > tonight and be there tomorrow. Hope you can make it Jason. > > > > On Jan 1, 9:59 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > It is at the Starbucks by the Malco Theater on Germantown Parkway (N. > > > > 990 Germantown Pkwy, Cordova, TN) > > > > > On Jan 1, 8:47 pm, "Liz Purkrabek" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Where is the book club this Saturday, Jason? > > > > > > Liz > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > > > > Jason > > > > > (Memphis) > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 8:06 PM > > > > > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > > > > > Subject: Book Club This Saturday > > > > > > This Saturday and next Saturday, Chris wanted us to review the > > > > > following article. I will be heading back to Tennessee and am going > > > > > to TRY to make it for book club. If I don't, I definitely will send > > > > > Liz a happy birthday shout out! > > > > > > How the Mind Works > > > > > >www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/daed.2006.135.3.86 > > > > > > Section One: Mind and Will & Section Three: Science and the Cosmos > > > > > >www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/great-debate.html > > > > > > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
