[From Bruce Abbott (950702.1025 EST)]
Rick Marken (950701.1200) --
Bill Powers (950630.?)
I think that Bruce is talking about a somewhat more complex theory
than that simple version.Yes. It's the version that can explain everything. That's why I have decided
to take over the role of reinforcement theorist and explain what their theory
actually says;-)If we can demonstrate by using disturbances that the SAME
consequence is associated with the entire possible range of behaviors,
then this consequence would have to be equally reinforcing of all the
behaviors that bring it about, and therefore incapable of reinforcing the
particular behavior needed to counteract a particular disturbance.I am working on such a demo now; I should have it ready soon. My prediction,
however, is that reinforcement theorists will have no problem accounting for
the results, even if they can't account for them. Reinforcement theorists,
like OJ's defense team, can't lose.
No, reinforcement theorists can't WIN.
You see, if they don't come up with a way to explain the behavior shown in
your test, then reinforcement theory is false.
But if they do come up with a way to explain the behavior shown in your
test, then, as you say, you will take this as evidence that reinforcement
theory is untestable, which is even worse than being false.
Either way, the reinforcement theorist looses. It's a perfect Catch-22.
If my perception is wrong on this, then please explain what outcome you
would take as _supporting_ reinforcement theory as opposed to damaging it.
Regards,
Bruce