Re: Against Behaviorism

stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Curt Welch says...

They [behaviorists] believe that you should only study the data
they actually have access to. Otherwise, you are not doing science.

I think this is the heart of the disagreement: what *is* science?
I don't agree at all that science is about "only studying data
you have access to". I take physics as an example of a successful
science, and what physics is about is the following cyle:

1. Make observations.

That's called collecting data.

2. Propose theories to explain observations.

That's called studying the data you have collected.

3. Propose new experiments or new observations to test these
theories.

That's called collecting more data.

4. Substitute new theories if the predictions don't pan out.

Strange that you say that science is not about studying the data we have
access to but then you outline science as a act of collecting data we have
access to and then studying it. What exactly do you think I meant by
"study the data we have access to" if not exactly what you outlined above?

Physicists do not limit themselves to describing data they
have access to. Theories can involve entities (elementary
particles, spacetime metrics, quantum fields) that are not
directly observable but are invoked as possible *explanations*
of things that are observable.

Those "things" you talk about are nothing more than conceptualizations
about the data they do have access to.

A good theory goes beyond what
has already been observed to make testable predictions about
future observations. The theories themselves can be used to
figure out new observations that can be made, new experiments
that can be performed. Sticking to "the data they actually
have access to" is an extremely *bad* way to do science.

Give me an example of where non-behavioral "mind" research has created a
theory about human behavior that is actually predictive in a mathematically
precise way about the data instead of being after the fact descriptive.

It certainly is the case that theory-making should be guided
by what is observable, but observations don't uniquely determine
the theory.

It makes no difference where the theory comes from. The question is
whether it's predictive of future data which can be collected.

Show me an example of a predictive theory about human or animal behavior
which hasn't already been studied by the behaviorists.

To pretend you know what is happening inside the brain when you
don't is not science.

On the contrary, yes it is. Theory-making amounts to a guess about
what is going on. You don't *know* whether the guess is right or not,
but you can assume that it is true for the sake of argument, for the
sake of working out the testable consequences.

yes, that's fine and good. At the same time, we make up theories about
what is happening inside things based on their external behavior and these
theories can turn out to be very predictive of future behavior - but yet,
when we find what is actually happening inside, we can find it's nothing
like our theory - it just happens to agree in the one area. But that's
fine. It doesn't need to agree to be useful. It only has to be
predictive.

But again, if you think behaviorists are not doing science, show me an
example of some behaviorists research and explain to me why it's not
science. There are thousands and thousands of papers published by
behaviorists. Show me how they are not science.

And if you think there is another science which is producing better
predictive theories about human behavior, show it to me.

A mechanic can probe the inside of the car, but a behaviorists for
the most part can't because doing so tends to damage the brain.

You don't necessarily have to physically examine the internals
of an object in order to make some progress on what might be going
on inside.

Yes, you are preaching to the choir on that one.

You guess "Maybe X is going on". Then you reason "If X
were the case, then we should expect to see behavior Y in circumstance
Z". Then you check circumstance Z and see if behavior Y actually
occurs. If not, then you've learned something. You've learned that
X is not the case (or that something additional is going on that you
haven't taken into account). Being able to probe the insides doesn't
fundamentally change this, it just increases the range of observations
that can be made. Whether you probe the insides or not, what you're
doing is making theories and then modifying them based on observations.

True. That's science. Now let me see you back up your claim that
behaviorism is not science. Show me another science of behavior which is
doing something that behaviorism is not already doing.

What they have problems with is using mentalist terms to describe
external behavior which is what we normally do. When we see a dog eat
something, we say the dog wanted it - or that the dog was hungry. Both
these concepts (hunger and wanting) imply things about the state of the
mind (aka brain) which we simply don't have access to.

Yes, in there is nothing wrong with that. Science does that all the
time. (At least *successful* sciences do).

If you think the concept of hunger is a valid scientific theory about what
happens inside the dog which is able to predict future behavior, explain it
to me and explain why whatever example you come up with hasn't already been
fully explained by the theories created by behaviorists.

If you come up with an example, I'll let Glen explain to you why the
behavior you are talking about has already been fully explored at least to
the same level you can talk about it, by the behaviorists.

We don't have probes in the brain of
the dog to tell us what is happening in the brain. All we really know
is the dog ate the food. All the behaviorist is doing, is real science.

I think that they misunderstand what real science is.

Do you understand that there are a very large number of behaviorists with a
PhD? Do you think that none of them understand what science is after 20
plus years of education in science? My 9th grader understands science at
least as well as you have explained it here. What makes you think that all
these PhDs dodn't understand what most 9th graders understand?

Maybe you need to stop and rethink your argument.

They report that the dog ate the food, instead of speculating about
"wanting" and "hunger" which are not scientific because they can't
be measured. Only the behavior can be measured (like a record of
each time the dog ate food). Any aspect of behavior which you think
you "understand" has already been studied and documented by a
behaviorist.

Yes, science is concerned with measurement. But *why*? Because
accurate measurements provide the details that are need to discriminate
between competing theories, or to suggest new theories. Measuring isn't
an end in itself.

The measurement is step one in your description above which I agree with.
It's not the end. It's the beginning and it's the foundation of all
science. Without measurement, you don't have science, you only have
philosophy.

You say your car doesn't respond to reinforcement, but humans do. That
seems like a clear indication that we don't work like cars. How is
that, "explaining nothing"?

The fact that we don't work like cars is an *observation*. Science
is about *explaining* observations.

Most good car mechanics can correctly diagnose virtually any problem
with a car just by starting it and driving it. They do this without
testing anything inside the car.

Yes, they rely on a working *model* for how cars work, and they
interpret their observations in terms of that model.

If there was nothing to be learned about cars by
studying only the external behavior, none of that would be possible.

I never said that nothing can be learned from external behavior.
I claim that you can learn much *more* from external behavior if
you try to construct a working model of what's going on inside
and constantly adjust that working model in light of observations.

And why do you think that the behaviorists are not doing exactly that?
Maybe it's because you are yet another person that puts done behaviorism
before they even understand what it is?

Why
does reinforcement *work* on a dog? It certainly doesn't work
on my car: I can't get better behavior from my car by using
operant conditioning (or whatever the expression is).

Because cars do not show operant conditioning behavior.

That's just repeating the observation that "reinforcement
doesn't work on cars". That isn't an explanation, that's
the observation to be explained.

Ok, since you can't understand it, let me explain to you what it means in
the way you like to look at it.

It means that inside the car, you will not find a reinforcement learning
machine. Inside a human, you will. A reinforcement learning machine is a
machine just like any other machine with a given set of known properties -
like heat engines, or a gear box, or a radio. None of those are
reinforcement learning machines.

Saying a dog wanted the food is not an explanation of the dog eating
behavior.

Yes, I know. It's a very compact *summary* of behavior. It doesn't
explain it. And neither does behaviorism. Behaviorism is just another
way to summarize observations, more precise than mentalistic
descriptions but also less powerful. Neither one explains behavior.

Give me a scientifically usable example of why the language of behaviorism
is less powerful than the language you like to use. Show me one of these
predictive theories you think are so important which can predict something
behaviorism can't predict at least as well.

It isn't an explanation, it is
an observation, and observations are what scientific theories
are supposed to explain.

Fine. Create a better theory to explain the observations. This is
exactly what behaviorism is working on. Why do you think they should
stop?

I don't care whether they stop. I just don't expect much of interest
to come from their studies. I think they are wasting their time.

Do you think you can create a better explanation than they have?

I think folk psychology is a better explanation. It's as much an
explanation as behaviorism is.

Then show me the scientific theories which are predictive of future
behavior which folk psychology has produced which hasn't already been done
at least as well by the work of behaviorists using their language.

I think you do in fact agree with me about what science is. Now show me
the work of a behaviorists and show me how it's not exactly what you call
science.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... mathematics is as weak as your grasp of science. ... similarities need to be to be considered a "hypothesis". ... Seen any baby cars recently? ... Then how would SETI be "falsified" using your ever twisting definition ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Signs of Deliberate Artifact?
    ... So, forensic science, and SETI science and anthropology are based on ... If you want me to say that cars don't look like ... I do take it on faith that scientists know what they're ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere
    ... rigid political ideology to any evidence that science has to offer. ... Too bad that US public schools are not able to do that. ... I don't think they anticipated this rush to small cars. ... But I suspect history will be kind to W, and give him and his people ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Against Behaviorism
    ... you are not doing science. ... say the dog wanted it - or that the dog was hungry. ... science is concerned with measurement. ... The fact that we don't work like cars is an *observation*. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Against Behaviorism
    ... you are not doing science. ... say the dog wanted it - or that the dog was hungry. ... science is concerned with measurement. ... The fact that we don't work like cars is an *observation*. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)