Re: Behaviorism vs. evolutionary psychology

On Jul 9, 1:57 pm, Don Geddis <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The behaviorists on this group always seem to leave out a big part of the
picture (specifically: the "nature" part of "nature vs. nuture").


Perhaps innate causes are not studied by behaviorists except
as unconditioned stimuli and responses? That they are things
that make up that which "mediates" behavior.

Although these evolutionary just so stories are fun to make
up I think you have to take them with some caution no matter
how plausible they may seem.

There are other factors such as the physics of matter and
mathematics that can explain some things such as the stripes
of tigers or the spots of leopards even if they are then
subjected to natural selection. Natural selection selects
it does not create the things it selects. These are the
products of chance and necessity.

Why evoke natural selection to explain the shape of the ibex's
horn when simple mathematics could do the job? [ref. Thompson]

--
JC

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Behaviorism vs. evolutionary psychology
    ... have to take them with some caution no matter how plausible they may seem. ... leopards even if they are then subjected to natural selection. ... both mutation and natural selection. ... how does "the physics of matter and mathematics" explain the ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1
    ... "David Longley" escreveu na mensagem ... >>often employ the same tactic are also behaviorists). ... > to accurately judge what the truth of the matter is. ... Your line of reasoning to demonstrate that cognitive science is ...
    (sci.cognitive)