For another useful critique of Kuhn's applicability to psychology, see:
O'Donohue, W.T. (1993). The spell of Kuhn on psychology: An exegetical
elixir. Philosophical Psychology, 6, 267-287.
...Scott
Christopher Green wrote:
Mike Palij wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:51:53 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:
The point is simply that what we, in the wake of behaviorism,
see as the "normal" meaning for "learning" is a historical
construction...
I have a problem with calling it a "historical construction" in
contrast to a theoretical or paradigmatic development.
As you wish, but I see no reason to privilege Kuhn's view of science
in this way, especially with respect to psychology, whch isn't among
the "sciences" he was writing about, though psychologists have, by and
large, missed this point in their eagerness to adopt Kuhn (See my
American Psychologist letter about this issue:
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/papers/Kuhn.Driver-Linn.comment.htm
If we
consider behaviorism to be a paradigm,
We shouldn't. It has few of the standard features of a paradigm. For
one thing, it never dominated the field in the way that, say, the
periodical table of elements did.
In short, the meaning of the term "learning" had to change farily
profoundly before behaviorism was possible. Danziger shows
the course of that change, now forgotten but all by historians of
the field.
He provides one "story" of what happened. I reserve the right
to withhold judgment on its utility.
How about its truth? How about it providing one with context (and
therefore understanding) that one didn't have before.
I think it would have been more helpful if you had directly addressed
the questions I provided below. For example, it seems to me that
Danziger is dismissing a "trans-species" view of learning processes
when he reviews Thorndike's work -- the impression I got was that
Danziger Thorndike was "overreaching" in attempting to develop such
a broad theory of "learning". I am I wrong in this impression?
Knowing Kurt, he probably does think that it was "overreaching." But,
so what? You can make your own decision on whether it was a good bet
or a bad one. That's not the important part of telling the history
that most have forgotten. The point is that the history of the
discipline did not have to follow the course that it did. There was no
inevitability about behaviorism or the generalized notion of learning
on which it depended. Certain decisions were made, contingently, by
people, which made certain paths easier to follow and certain paths
more difficult. We tend to forget about those decision points decades
down the line. That is what historians do -- crack through the sense
of inevitablility we have about where we stand now; show what
historical figures were actually trying to do in their own time,
rather than just blythely assuming that they were trying (and failing)
to be us.
Second, wasn't it over-reaching? Didn't behaviorism ultimately founder
(in the sense of ultaimtely failing to caputre all of psychology)
because it couldn't cash in its promisory notes on things like
language and complex decision making?
Regards,
--
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology, Room 206
Emory University
532 N. Kilgo Circle
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
(404) 727-1125 (phone)
(404) 727-0372 (FAX)
Home Page: http://www.emory.edu/PSYCH/Faculty/lilienfeld.html
The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice:
www.srmhp.org
The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and
his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and
his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which
is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does,
leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him – he is
always doing both.
- Zen Buddhist text
(slightly modified)
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
