sjs@u1100s.UUCP (Stan Switzer) (06/26/85)
---- I know this doesn't belong in net.physics, but ... In article <217@unccvax.UUCP> dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) writes: > > Two fundamental problems here: 1) This kind of research explains > away, rather than explains; 2) a reasonably decent model that will > weather academic criticism well already exists. > > The tools to grapple with the class of problems you just mentioned > already exist in behavioural psychology. Spoon bending behaviour is one > thing (which I doubt exists) but all the other stuff (precognition, > deja vu, etc) can be effectively explained. > > The fundamental flaw with paranormal psychology research is that > it is often procedurally contaminated. In the above mentioned cases, > each one can be explained by an "attenuated behaviour" model, where > person A, based on some reinforcers in common (or, for that matter, > disjoint) with person B, have the same behaviour. The first one goes > out and wraps his Corvette 'round a pine tree. The second, behaving > in an attenuated fashion, has a 'precognition' while in an elevator > 2000 miles away that A has done so. > > But what about the cases where a 'psychic' is hired to find the > dead body of some pour soul that has the cops baffled? Again, these > psychics have the (albeit very limited) knack of finding some relevant > reinforcer in the situation and extrapolating behaviourally to the > behavioural end. This is certainly more reasonable an explaination > than 'tapping in' to some undiscovered pheonomena in the Ether. > > Ditto for extraordinary knowledge from people with no training, > etc. If you are willing to chuck out "knowledge as being representational" > and all that cognitive crap, and assume that humans are behavioural > systems rather than Von Neumann architectures (both of which will > stand up much longer to severe enquiry than will ESP research), most, > if not all, this paranormal crap is reduced to ordinary experience. > > ... > > > Now, radical behaviourism as a science is not perfect, but at > least it is scholarly, and makes a damned good attempt to explain > rather than explain away. > > > David Anthony > DataSpan, Inc Talk about explain away!! I agree that there are no "psycic phenomenon." But your explaination in terms of behaviorism is far-fetched. Behaviorism is a pretty good model--for pidgeons. Where it fails is that it cannot EXPLAIN any of the differences between a fish, a dog, and a man. It cannot explain how people can count from 345896 to 345924--without ever having been exposed to that particular stimulus. It cannot explain how people can parse language, especially (note this, please) in the case of convoluted, or especially highly nested, syntactic structures. Deny the existance of cognition and memory, but still explain senility and mental impairment. The only advantage of behaviorism is that it forms a complete model that can be subjected to experiment. Unfortunately, no one really has a sufficient model of behavior--we just don't understand it yet. A behaviorist just sticks his head in the sand and says "we do so." The cognitive psych approach is to attempt to find a better model. No cognitive psychologist claims to have a complete (or even approximate) model of behavior. They are just honest enough to know that they have to keep looking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stan Switzer | "Pavlov? That rings a bell!" ihnp4!u1100s!sjs |