[From Chris Cherpas (960819.1210 PT)]
[re: > Bill Powers (960813.1430 MDT)]
BP:
I recommend to all PCTers that they read the whole article. It
demonstrates Skinner's thoroughness as an experimenter, his cleverness,
and his absolute blindness...
cc:
It's rare to find a critic of B.F. Skinner's who's actually read
the primary sources. Go Bill.
BP:
Nor did he modify his experimental approach. In the first excerpt above,
the pigeon is actually operating in a basically analog situation,
continuously varying the position of the hoist to keep the target
approaching. But in the Pelican control system design, Skinner went back
to what he was comfortable with -- pigeons pecking. He did this despite...
cc:
I think the continuous nature of behavior is something Skinner struggled
with and never resolved. His hope was that the thousands of key pecks and
bar presses plotted cumulatively over time in a free operant situation would
allow behavior analysts to see beyond the convenient fiction of S-R. If you
check the first cumulative index for JEAB, you'll see references to
"continuous repertoires" but they ultimately miss the boat. I think that
demonstrations of control are much clearer when the perceptions being
controlled, and the actions needed to compensate for error, can be seen
to vary continuously.
[re: } Rick Marken (960813.2130)]
RM:
}I read (or my graduate adviser, who
}knew Skinner, told me) that Skinner didn't like math, probably
}because he was not very good at it. But he was a good tinkerer
}so he found his niche in research psychology; he was (as you note)
}a clever experimenter. But his dislike of math led to a dislike of
}theory (modeling) as well (most real theories are mathematical) so
}he became a clever experimenter with no quantitative theory to test.
cc:
I definitely think Skinner was mathematically challenged, but he also
wanted to avoid the quantitative theorizing of Hull, Spence, et al.
Skinner also hoped that a behavioristic analysis of scientific behavior
would eventually reveal the very foundations of such mathematical
modeling anyway.
RM:
}I think Skinner really disliked mathematical modelling -- even when
}his disciples did it. I think he liked to talk a theory -- not only
}because talking came so much easier than math but also because it was
}so much easier to make things come out right that way. I think Skinner's
}comment that "reality was no match for mathematics" was his way of
}saying "see, my experimental tinkering reveals a reality that is
}not even dreamed of in your mathematics".
cc:
I think you're right on the money, Rick. After studying Skinner's
writings in detail for years (try not to get sick, Rick), I have come
away with a sense of someone who hoped the experimental analysis of
of behavior would _lead_ to a formal, physiology-grounded theory of behavior,
but, perhaps after having some early failures, became hyper-vigilant not
to "prematurely" posit mathematical models nor to "gratuitously
physiologize" -- which he saw "traditional" psychologists doing (whom
he viewed as intellectually dishonest). Besides not appreciating
PCT when he was exposed to it (see Bill P.'s post), Skinner's writings
suffered from inconsistencies, gaps, loopholes, and a lot of preaching.