Re: Skinnerian behaviorism
Sep 12, 1997 10:41 PM
by Tim Maroney
>Would anyone like to comment on B.F. Skinners deterministic model? For
>Skinner everything was physical and human beings were totaly controlled
>by their environment.
Skinner would have rejected those statements as too philosophical and not
subject to empirical measurement, at least within the scope of his
behavioral science (as opposed to the two well-known popular books he
wrote -- many people get these personal musings and speculations confused
with behaviorism). People think of behaviorism as some sort of malevolent
soul-crushing force but it would be more correct to classify it with
positivist and formalist movements in mathematics and the sciences. It
does suffer from their limitations but it is not some ravening attempt to
eradicate the soul. If the soul could be measured, behaviorism would be
happy to engage it as a subject; otherwise it says it is outside its
scope as a science.
>People have no souls, so they themselves cannot be
>considered as part of their own environment.
This is far outside the behaviorist scope -- it's metaphysical, and not a
part or corollary of the science of Skinner, Watson, Pavlov, what have
>How does contemplation of self fit in Skinners model?
In a biographical article a few years ago in one of the freethinking
magazines (I think Skeptical Inquirer but possibly Free Inquiry) he
described his regular morning practice of a kind of meditation he
identified as Zen.
The most advanced form of behavioral modification in his system is known
technically as "self-control."
>Why is it that only computers can have virtue in our day?
Well, I'd love to discuss Skinner but I don't know what most of this has
to do with him....
Tim Maroney firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.maroney.org
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application