Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms

ck wrote:
[...]


Thanks for the heads up, i'm really after a discussion on the
implications, as oppose to the definitions attached to cause
and effect.

Er, I have no idea what you mean by this. What's a definition attached to cause and effect? What implications do you want to discuss? You can't discuss implications if X if what you mean by X is something other than what I mean by X. IOW, from your comments sofar I see you talking about something that I don't recognise as the behaviourist stance. So I'd like to know what you think you are talking about. Then maybe we can get to some implications.

What of the effects we haven't yet charted for this
science? Who thinks ahead? You might start with the few on the
receiving end of this science, all the differences between
theory and daily chore of its practice.

You're confusing science with technology. When it comes to the technology of persuasion and control, all successful persuaders/controllers, of whatever religious or political orientation, have used thoroughly behaviouristic methods, although most of them have taken great care to dress them up as something else - "freedom of choice" is a popular one nowadays, especially in the USA.

Its interesting to see GS ask for definitions of positive
reinforcement, when even Father Skinner acknowledged what
applies for one person won't necessarily apply to another.

Erm, by this reasoning, bridge building has the same problems. What applies to one bridge doesn't necessarily apply to another. Except of course for general principles. Positive reinforcement is a general principle of behaviour modification, and it works whether or not the subject is aware of the reinforcer. You, for example, have certainly been positively reinforced to behave politely, etc -- all the behaviours that make it possible for people to get along with each other. I mean, you weren't born with them, were you? Most of that reinforcement occurred below your level of consciousness, by which I mean you weren't aware that your behaviours were reinforced, nor which ones, only that you were getting along nicely with some other person(s).

On a practical level, out amoungst the masses there wouldn't
be any room in its practice to recognize the subjectivity of
this area. Its a science of models and probabilities looking
to make truth of the preordained behaviour, a science which fundamentally needs routine to prove its worth.

Huh???? Without some example of what you have in mind by "subjectivity in this area", I can't parse this comment. Kindly elucidate. The second sentence is no clearer than the first. What do you mean by "preordained behaviour"? What do you man by "looking to make truth [of something]"? And if by "routine to prove its worth" you mean something like the tedious gathering of data in repeated experiments and observations, well, that's a price paid in all sciences that I have knowledge of (and did lab work in in my younger days.) If you means something else, kindly elucidate.

As for agenda, our cleric GS would do well to consider the
future proscribed by Father Skinner.

I suggest you look up the difference between "proscribed" and "prescribed." You are saying something quite contrary to your intentions, insofar as I can infer them from your comments above and in previous posts.

And FWIW, I react negatively to use of "its" as "it's". ;-)

--
Wolf
'Just because it's true doesn't mean it's the right answer.'

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... What implications do you want to discuss? ... coercive use of that science, and given the instincts of the human ... the differences between them and us, the observer and the observed. ... Positive reinforcement is a general principle of behaviour modification, and it works whether or not the subject is aware of the reinforcer. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... What applies to one bridge doesn't necessarily apply to another. ... Positive reinforcement is a general principle of behaviour modification, and it works whether or not the subject is aware of the reinforcer. ... then what would one be observing, if it isn't also the observer. ... to make truth of the preordained behaviour, a science which fundamentally needs routine to prove its worth. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... What applies to one bridge doesn't necessarily apply to another. ... Positive reinforcement is a general principle of behaviour modification, and it works whether or not the subject is aware of the reinforcer. ... then what would one be observing, if it isn't also the observer. ... to make truth of the preordained behaviour, a science which fundamentally needs routine to prove its worth. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Is ID "science"?
    ... >>>destroying science. ... > scientific theory under your definition, ... with the Big Bang which occurred in Nature, ... many people saw in the Big Bang implications for theology and philosophy ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: NBC special " The Mysterious Origins of Man"
    ... can't write clearly, btw), who says you can depreciate real estate. ... implications because it doesn't square with some social philosopher ... If it can't make predictions, it's not a science, it's tea leaves. ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)