At 12:52 PM -0500 12/11/06, David Epstein wrote:
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!
I believe that his point was that it was not necessary to invoke
inner agents in order to understand and predict behavior.
His point in regard to data was that it supported his statement that
he could adequately account for (control and predict) behavior simply
through knowledge of contingencies past and present, within the
bounds set by genetics.
--
The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that
people believe in it.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ *
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
