This beetle makes my head hurt and I want to put it in a box and blow it up along with Shroedinger's cat.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Jason (Memphis) <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > 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 > > > -- gnothe se auton --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
