I am finally getting around to reading this essay, Dan--or rather, I read your Summary, as the essay itself looked intimidating. Your summary was excellent though, and I don't feel like I have missed anything other than hearing things in Skinners own words.
Q1: What do you make of Skinner’s core thesis? Can (or should) all human cognition be described in behavioural terms?
I don't think so. One of the things that the Enlightenment brought us is the Scientific Method and Empiricism. I don't think Empiricism can capture the sum of all human experience, and anecdotal evidence is required. I think this is why there are many hypotheses and tests and experiments about a humans interior life, and yet human behavior can be quite intuitively understood between fellow humans who have known each other a long time. There's no need to look for stimuli or patterns.
I think the "babies are random-process generators" trying out every combination until they try something that gets a reaction is overblown. It feels like trying to retcon an explanation for a phenomenon we observe. I think also that a spiritual component is missing--namely because this is the lens through which I view the world. Behavior alone cannot explain everything human, and our souls and grace work in our lives from the moment of our conception. We are unique persons from the very beginning, and I truly believe that some aspects and idiosyncrasies that result from that cannot be explained.
Q3: Language is incredibly important to contemporary psychology and philosophy. Do you agree with Skinner’s assertion that “etymology is the archeology of thought”?
I think this is a really interesting idea but again, I feel like he is working backwards. He sees a phenomenon and is inventing an explanation for it, rather than really observing anything unique. Language is as much a function of time as it is of place, and encoded into etymology is a context that we cannot access except obliquely. So I think to say that we adopt terms that resemble physical phenomena is to ignore the context of words. I would say especially--the existence of synonyms becomes problematic. Why would not people in the same culture at the same time use the same word? What did the study of etymology look like for the ancient romans? The ancient greeks?
Q4: Is this a topic you’d like to discuss more in future?
Yes! This is really interesting, and especially it's something I'm not very knowledgeable about so it would be interesting to learn through these essays some different schools of thought on the subject!
I’m most struck by the ‘etymology is the archaeology of thought’ concept. I’ve long been fascinated by the development of language, from when I first got into Tolkien, through today as I observe corporate jargon and its odd poetics. The idea that the roots of our behavior can be excavated by looking at how we use which words to describe it is fascinating to me.
I am finally getting around to reading this essay, Dan--or rather, I read your Summary, as the essay itself looked intimidating. Your summary was excellent though, and I don't feel like I have missed anything other than hearing things in Skinners own words.
Q1: What do you make of Skinner’s core thesis? Can (or should) all human cognition be described in behavioural terms?
I don't think so. One of the things that the Enlightenment brought us is the Scientific Method and Empiricism. I don't think Empiricism can capture the sum of all human experience, and anecdotal evidence is required. I think this is why there are many hypotheses and tests and experiments about a humans interior life, and yet human behavior can be quite intuitively understood between fellow humans who have known each other a long time. There's no need to look for stimuli or patterns.
I think the "babies are random-process generators" trying out every combination until they try something that gets a reaction is overblown. It feels like trying to retcon an explanation for a phenomenon we observe. I think also that a spiritual component is missing--namely because this is the lens through which I view the world. Behavior alone cannot explain everything human, and our souls and grace work in our lives from the moment of our conception. We are unique persons from the very beginning, and I truly believe that some aspects and idiosyncrasies that result from that cannot be explained.
Q3: Language is incredibly important to contemporary psychology and philosophy. Do you agree with Skinner’s assertion that “etymology is the archeology of thought”?
I think this is a really interesting idea but again, I feel like he is working backwards. He sees a phenomenon and is inventing an explanation for it, rather than really observing anything unique. Language is as much a function of time as it is of place, and encoded into etymology is a context that we cannot access except obliquely. So I think to say that we adopt terms that resemble physical phenomena is to ignore the context of words. I would say especially--the existence of synonyms becomes problematic. Why would not people in the same culture at the same time use the same word? What did the study of etymology look like for the ancient romans? The ancient greeks?
Q4: Is this a topic you’d like to discuss more in future?
Yes! This is really interesting, and especially it's something I'm not very knowledgeable about so it would be interesting to learn through these essays some different schools of thought on the subject!
Thanks Dan! This was fantastic!
I’m most struck by the ‘etymology is the archaeology of thought’ concept. I’ve long been fascinated by the development of language, from when I first got into Tolkien, through today as I observe corporate jargon and its odd poetics. The idea that the roots of our behavior can be excavated by looking at how we use which words to describe it is fascinating to me.