[From: Dennis Delprato]
(isaac kurtzer)
reading your article am i to understand that skinner felt that
psychology could be reduced to chemistry,physics,etc. but that it was not
necessary to explain behavior (superfluous?) ?
First, note the data reveal Skinner to be inconsistent on
reductionism-nonreductionism. This is clearly discussed in the
article.
On explanation: His view is that if one can predict and produce
(control) a phenomenon, then this is explanation. There is nothing left
to explain. One has done everything necessary. It is when one
cannot predict and control events that we find the sort of
theorizing he deplored (see discussion under "Purpose of
Science."
When he uses the expressions "understanding,"
"understood," and "knowledge" (in several included quotations)
he is addressing explanation. Furthermore, he uses the term
"explanation" in the quotation on p. 2, col. 1, para. 2 (from
his 1950, "Are Theories of Learning Necessary?", p. 193).
What kind of explanation/theory did he find impedes science?
Those with nonspatiotemporal referents/mentalistic ones/
spookological ones/supernatural ones.
Dennis Delprato
Psy_Delprato@emunix.emich.edu