Sorry, I thought this thread was dead.

Unless you were born yesterday, you know about Nature-Nurture debate.
(of which nurture appears to be winning by genetics - at the moment.
even if they also are wrong. Our behavior on the genetic account arise
from our genes - Matt Riley in The Genome talks about 'The Language
Gene.' I don't think much of this either) The Nature-Nurture debate is
simply part of a much longer debate and that being between Empiricism
and Rationalism going all the way back to Aristotle (as Empiricist) and
Plato (as Rationalist).

For Skinner---

My information comes from Professor Daniel Robinson Ph.D. in Psychology
at Georgetown University in Washington DC course Great Ideas of
Psychology Lectures14 B.F. Skinner and Modern Behaviorism and Lecture 15
B.F. Skinner and the Engineering of Society. His information listed in
the referernce for his course are B.F. Skinner Science and Human
Behavior, (1953) New York: Macmillion/B.F. Skinner "Can Psychology be a
science of the mind?" 1990 American Psychologist, vol 45 1206-10.
Robinson has taught at Georgetown University since 1971where he is a
professor of psychology. He also has a number of books, one of which is
Philosophy of Psychology.

Robinson Lecture 14 Outline pamphlet p7-8 ---

"I. Skinner sought to establish psychology as a descriptive science of
behavior."
"A.Ernst Mach took a the grounding of every science to be at the level
of observation and experiment."
"B. Skinner was committed to the Machian perspective in the
psychological domain. This would become clear in Skinner's first work,
Behavior of Organisms.. In this work he declared a scientific psychology
based on behavior could be independent from physiology, chemistry, and
the like."
"1. Throughout the 19'th century, influential psychological thinkers
tied psychological phenomena to "physiological phenomena."
"2. In dealing with this question, Skinner argued that the facts of
behavior survive any theoretical construction. Nothing is added to the
information of behavior by knowing what is inside the organism, even if
there isn't anything inside the organism at all."

[Read that last line again --- real carefully.]

"II. A purely descriptive science of behavior must be lean in its
terminology, avoiding the use of private, mentalistic terms. To avoid
the use of mentalistic terms, one may adopt operational definitions. For
instance, one can define hunger as hours of food deprivation. The
determinants of behavior, from Skinner's perpective, are external to the
organism.


"Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren" wrote in message
...
[Mike Dubbeld] (apparently quoting Skinner)

| You are the product of your environment.

[Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren]

| and where does he say that?

[Bob White]

Nobody ever said this was a Skinner quote. But it most certainly does
fit Skinners idiot ideas. From above --

"---Skinner argued that the facts of behavior survive any theoretical
construction. Nothing is added to the information of behavior by knowing
what is inside the organism, even if there isn't anything inside the
organism at all." D. Robinson

In other words Skinners version of psychology was independent of all
physiology whatsoever. It was not necessary to know what the physiology
of the organism was - only how it behaved. And its behavior was a result
of past experience. This same idiot idea arose with John Locke - Tabula
Rasa/blank slate. Per idiot brain Empiricists, humans have no innate
intelligence - let alone animals.

It is likely you do not know how Gestalt Psychology was the first to
deal Behaviorism a fatal blow. Kohler and his experiments on Sultan the
ape most certainly can not be accounted for by Behaviorism not the work
of Toleman and Blotchet wheeling rats around in wheelbarrows through
mazes. Also Robinson lectures. That was long ago. Anyone that does not
believe that animals have mental life is a total whacko/loser -
especially Skinner. Behaviorism has its place but it is only a small
place. I also know of nightmare stories of Behaviorists attempting to
associate behavior with catatonic schitzophrenia - yes sportsfan, this
was attempted to be diagnosed as a behavioral problem too. Idiots.

In the 'Enlightenment' thousands of witches were burned at the stake.
Who do you think your chances of being tried as a witch would be
better - tried by the church or by the state? (Crown) The Church. Know
why? Because the Kings and so forth sought to be holier than the holy
and thus prosecuted more vigorously. What does this have to do with
anything? Psychology is a science wannabe. It too attempts to be more
scientific than science. In so doing it makes a lot of stupid decisions.
B.F. Skinner was one such decision. Empirical means to justify itself as
a science - not to further understanding in psychology. Yes lugnuts
psychology idiot behaviorists, it is ok to once again talk about the
mind and the mental life of animals without concern for cuts in funding
as not being scientific. I call it the 'Skinner Rein of Terror.' Skinner
did at least as much harm to psychology as he did help to it.


Mike Dubbeld



| Ferster and Skinner demonstrated that bhavior is determined by the
| contingencies of reinforcement from the environment acting upon the
genetic
| heritage of the organism. See _Schedules of Reinforcement_ by B. F.
| Skinner, Carl D. Cheney, W. H. Morse, P. B. Dews, Charles B. Ferster

where exactly here does Skinner state that we are products of our
environment?

[Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren]

| why do you assume that Skinner studied philosophy, physiology and
| neurology? why did he put so much emphasis on the biological makeup
of
| the organism?

[Bob White]

| On the contrary, for Ferster and Skinner, et al, the emphasis is on
| the experimental variable, "contingencies of reinforcement from the
| environment." The variable, "genetic heritage (biological makeup)"
is
| a variable that has been controled for in the experiments
| demonstrating that behavior is determined by the contingencies of
| reinforcement.

where does Skinner state that "behavior is determined by the
contingencies of reinforcement"? exactly where does he use the word
_determined_?

--
Rolf Lindgren
http://www.roffe.com/