OM (live the sound of the evolving universe), I think that the approaches of men such as Noam Chomsky and B.F. Skinner are just very different. I am not sure how to articulate this difference but will try anyway. I saw a similar type of difference with a debate between Steven Haynes (behaviorist) and Albert Ellis (cognitive psychologist) a few years ago at the Association for Behavior Analysis in a tiny little room. Both of them were convincing but as a young person in his twenties, I was taken aback by how two prominent men psychology could be so emotional about these supposedly academic topics (on the edge of yelling) and then joke around afterward and head down to the hotel bar. Their debate seemed more like an intensely heated philosophy of science debate than a discussion about experimental data.
Anyway, perhaps it is just a tolerance for precision and measure- ability. Behaviorists often talk about non-measurable things in their private lives (you have to) but don't think that those things should be part of a science of psychology until those things are far less vague (or exact). And many behaviorist also believe (but not all behaviorists) that the focus of a science of organisms should be prediction and control--the yard stick of a good concept or theory. Perhaps Behaviorists are also too emotional and Hate [capital H] Wittgenstein's beetles that some call mentalism in psychology. Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations, 1953, section 293) "Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a 'beetle.' No one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. -- Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing. -- But suppose the word 'beetle' had a use in those people's language? -- If so it would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing in the box has no place in the language game at all; not even as something: for the box might even be empty. -- No, one can 'divide through' by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it is." Jason On Nov 25, 6:37 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > “I think that my major criticism of Noam Chomsky is his lack of > scientific thinking especially making predictions or controlling > organisms. Most of what I've read are historical interpretations of > established facts and descriptions of something that has already > happened. He definitely has his facts in order. However, Noam seldom > attempts to make specific predictions of societal drifts that could be > verified--or at least he is not any better at predicting than other > historical experts. In addition, many of his followers do not > challenge what he says and most of what he says is said in such a way > that makes it hard to challenge (or test). Framing has been studied > extensively and the master of framing is Noam Chomsky himself.” – J > > Again Jason, as a bit of a mirror to your post which I DID ask for, I > find your criticism of Noam as not being ‘scientific’, something he > has never claimed to be nor even implies let alone wants to be as far > as I know to be quite troubling logically. Clearly he does read and > understand science. I can see that you may mean he doesn’t write in a > style and way you want to study. This is fine, but hardly a valid > criticism of his writing style nor content. And then you apparently > criticizing those who have read him by labeling them as ‘followers’ as > well as because they “do not challenge what he says”… this just after > you said “He definitely has his facts in order.”, as well as saying > that “…it [is] hard to challenge (or test)…” Noam to be a continuation > of what, to me, is a clear inconsistency. > > Said differently, I can appreciate that you don’t like to read him. I > don’t accept your criticism as holding much weight. And, of course, it > is not ‘scientific’! : - ) > > “A particular (this is just one) criticism is that he wrote a review > of B.F. Skinner's "Verbal Behavior" (link below) and presented > arguments against Skinner that Skinner never claimed. I included > Noam's case against Skinner and a response by a behaviorist. Chomsky > also accused Skinner of advancing totalitarianism (much the same as > Noam--directly or indirectly--is accusing Obama). Yes, Skinner does > advocate a science of the behavior of organisms, which would embrace, > explore, refine and advance a scientific discipline to predict and > control organisms with scientific precision (including humans). That > is what Chomsky seems to fear (as do others including Skinner). The > concept of "freedom" or "free will" or the idea that humans are above > the laws of nature and therefore immune to scientific prediction and > control is a Western religion and Chomsky is sort of the Priest. At > the end of Skinner's "Science and Human Behavior," Skinner warned > people that one why to defend against the abuses of a science of human > behavior is for the masses to learn about how that science works and > those scientific techniques employed. Politicans and government have > been working on a science of human behavior for years (akin to > Asimov's psycho- history). The problem with Skinner is his ideal that > such a discipline should be transparent and open to the public and > entire scientific community.” – J > > Whew! Did your read both in their entirety? I tried and couldn’t > finish them. I did scan them though. I do appreciate you giving a > specific. And, as I was reading Kenneth’s critique, I found enough in > the way of inconsistencies and typical hypocrisy (http:// > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrite ) as to not be too impressed. By the > way, I find a similar style in both of our presentations. While I try > to not include such lack of the principle of universality, I seldom > fully succeed. At first, I was going to do an analysis of both and > now know that is more work than I wish to do at this time. The same > goes for doing a full analysis of your post as interesting as it is. > > To share my bias, I have a general distaste for Skinner. I have a > general loathing of Rand. (mentioned elsewhere). I first read some of > her works in the 60s and had an uneasy feeling in my gut as a result. > Later, I was more able to do an analysis of this distasteful way of > thinking. And, even though Kenneth referenced William James in support > of his own thesis, I do like much of James’ thoughtful and > groundbreaking work. Mostly the simple 3 methods he proposed to study > mind. > > Since all of this includes psychology, philosophy, epistemology, > linguistics etc., my guess is that we approach the world in slightly > different ways and most likely will not be able to clearly discuss it. > In a different group, doing some research I ran across a great term > that clearly describes this apparent impasse and, unfortunately, I > have quickly forgotten it! Oh, well. > > Continuing, yes, Noam is a master of linguistics. In one communication > with him, he suggested some of his early books on this very topic to > me. At the time I said I wasn’t very interested. Today, I wish I had > the time and patience to delve into his seminal linguistic work. I > merely read him to shake up my own belief structures. He is great at > that. Oh, by the way, he, you, me as well as Kenneth all use hyperbole > as a technique. I know this. I like the way he uses it. It suits the > subject in my opinion. But, of course, even though he founded an > entire study of linguistics, he does not come across like a scientist. > Nor do I think he should. Nor would I want him to. A quick aside about > the point/counterpoint you mentioned about him and Skinner earlier, > apparently neither had experimental data. > > Geezz, this post is reduced to being about almost nothing. Sorry. I > took so much time on it and reading I’m gonna post it anyway! > > On Nov 25, 10:10 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > ornamentalmind, > > > I think that my major criticism of Noam Chomsky is his lack of > > scientific thinking especially making predictions or controlling > > organisms. Most of what I've read are historical interpretations of > > established facts and descriptions of something that has already > > happened. He definitely has his facts in order. However, Noam seldom > > attempts to make specific predictions of societal drifts that could be > > verified--or at least he is not any better at predicting than other > > historical experts. In addition, many of his followers do not > > challenge what he says and most of what he says is said in such a way > > that makes it hard to challenge (or test). Framing has been studied > > extensively and the master of framing is Noam Chomsky himself. > > > A particular (this is just one) criticism is that he wrote a review of > > B.F. Skinner's "Verbal Behavior" (link below) and presented arguments > > against Skinner that Skinner never claimed. I included Noam's case > > against Skinner and a response by a behaviorist. Chomsky also accused > > Skinner of advancing totalitarianism (much the same as Noam--directly > > or indirectly--is accusing Obama). Yes, Skinner does advocate a > > science of the behavior of organisms, which would embrace, explore, > > refine and advance a scientific discipline to predict and control > > organisms with scientific precision (including humans). That is what > > Chomsky seems to fear (as do others including Skinner). The concept > > of "freedom" or "free will" or the idea that humans are above the laws > > of nature and therefore immune to scientific prediction and control is > > a Western religion and Chomsky is sort of the Priest. At the end of > > Skinner's "Science and Human Behavior," Skinner warned people that one > > why to defend against the abuses of a science of human behavior is for > > the masses to learn about how that science works and those scientific > > techniques employed. Politicans and government have been working on a > > science of human behavior for years (akin to Asimov's psycho- > > history). The problem with Skinner is his ideal that such a > > discipline should be transparent and open to the public and entire > > scientific community. > > > By the way, Chomsky (from the little I've read) is a fun read, and > > he's a linguistic master. > > > A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (1959) by Noam Chomsky > > >http://cogprints.org/1148/0/chomsky.htm > > > On Chomsky’s Review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (Journal of the > > Experimental Analysis of Behavior, volume 13, pages 83–99) > > >http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/abstracts/jeababstracts/13/%2013-083... > > > Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
