On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Bryan Midgley went:
IT'S INTERESTING THAT WE ARE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. I SUGGESTED THAT BF&D SHOULD NOT BE ON THE LIST OF SCIENCE BOOKS, AND DAVID EPSTEIN THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE.
I never explicitly took a position on whether it should be on the list--but OK, I did say that everyone with an interest in psychology should read it.
SKINNER'S PROGRAM IN BF&D IS GENERAL. HE IS CRITICIZING "INNER AGENTS" AND ARGUING FOR THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINGENCIES OF REINFORCEMENT. THE DATA COME NOT FROM ONE CRUCIAL EXPERIMENT, BUT FROM HUNDREDS OF PAGES IN SOMETHING LIKE THE _JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR_ WHERE EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF BEHAVIOR WAS DEMONSTRATED AGAIN AND AGAIN. THE MESSAGE, WHILE IMPORTANT, IS GENERAL: CONTINGENCIES WORK. SAY THAT, ADD SOME CITATIONS, AND YOU'RE DONE. IF THAT'S WHAT DAVID EPSTEIN IS LOOKING FOR, I'LL GO ALONG.
If Skinner had said only that, I'd have nothing to criticize. "Contingencies work" has been my bread and butter (I help to run clinical trials that use contingency management for drug abuse). But he said far more: as you pointed out, he criticized "inner agents." He said, flat out, that thoughts and feelings are not causes of behavior. That assertion can't be logically derived from any amount of data that say "contingencies work." It appears to derive from no source at all. Yet Skinner strongly implied that he had data to back it up. I don't know how to make it any plainer! --David Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
