Jason, I read a little bit of Skinner's thoughts and I agree that Fodris not giving a good account of them. However, I think your arguments are weak. I will try to explain this in writing later on, if I have time. In any case I will explain this at the book club if you make it, and possibly even if you don't. I suggest that you get there so you can defend your opinons. :-).
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 - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
