Skinner+(WK2)

=The Psychological Review=

by: B.F. Skinner
**He later clarifies the scale of theories stating that there is a difference in relevance. ** **The best place to observe natural behavior is in a natural environment. **
 * I agree with the previous statement. It seemed to me that Skinner did not want to be preoccupied with proving a theory as well as getting off topic.**
 * The possibility of a theory takes away from the research. Trying to prove theory over actual research?**
 * The testing process is focused on other data that is relevant but not important to the initial investigation**
 * If we are looking for a response time does not matter.**

Skinner questions whether "theories" are helpful in studies of learning. He argues that theories, by his definition, involve connections thought to be present between various systems. While other scientists have used such theories to guide their experiments, he believes that this mostly only serves to bring up more questions and uncertainties, none of them necessarily relevant or helpful. If one avoids theorizing on other processes and focuses only on learning, they are less likely to be brought off topic, and the results of the experiments will be more helpful.

This has always been something that I have agreed with to some degree, and have often been frustrated by scientific "theories" which try to imply a connection that is, at best, tenuous. If we focus more directly on what we are studying, surely the results will be less confusing and more likely to come up with new information instead of just jumbling together pre-existing information into a mess of a web that has little to add to the overall understanding of the topic.

I have read the article, but am wondering if we should assign segments to each of us for notes? This way we don't all present the same material. email* me at sbvandi@aol.com with comments. We can delete this disussion after we made a decision. Thanks, Sundee Vandiver


 * I believe that using email as a method of communication make a moot point of creating this wiki. It seems to be his desire to have all of our communication openly here, where it can be viewed and review.

I have also read the article, I believe that it would be to late to assign segments for notes. If we present the same material it might just mean that the same thing appealed to the group. Dallen Archer

Hey crew,

I'm a little behind schedule right now, but I wanted to share what I have of explication on the article to help get us started. Please feel free to edit, add, or subtract from what I've written to help us get a clearer consensus understanding:

The article is a critique of theory used in the study of learning. Skinner defines theory as:

"...any explanation of an observed fact which appeals to events taking place somewhere else, at some other level of observation, described in different terms, and measured, if at all, in different dimensions (p.193)."

In other words, I think Skinner sees applications of theory in the scientific study of learning as argument-by-analogy, a technique which never really gets at the phenomena under study  Additionally, I think Skinner would argue that theory (explaining one thing by reference to the conceptual tools and measures used to explain another) can actually obscure and condition the scientist's perception and study of the phenomena.

Skinner explains the function and reason for theory's use/existence:

"The entities which have figured so prominently in learning theory have served mainly as substitutes for a directly observable and productive datum. They have little reason to survive when such a datum has been found (p.198)."

In other words, the function of theory is to explain phenomena that is difficult or apparently impossible to observe/explain directly due to our lacking a dependent variable (the thing we'll measure in the experiment). 

Skinner bases his critique of the necessity of theory in the study of learning on his belief that **//rate of response//** "...appears to be the only datum that varies significantly and in the expected direction under conditions which are relevant to the 'learning process' (p.198)." In other words, Skinner believes that the study of learning no longer lacks a dependent variable because **//rate of response//** functions as a dependent variable in studies of learning, and //therefore// theory is no longer necessary in the study of learning.

Skinner goes on to explain that //**rate of response**// can allow scientists to make statements about the probability of response, thus making the study scientific (p.199).

Team, what do you think so far? What else can we add? Where have I gone wrong? What are your interpretations of the article?

Are theories of learning neccesary? Certain statements are also theories simply to the extent that they are not yet facts. A scientist may guess at the result of an experiment before the experiment is carried out. The prediction and the later statement of result may be composed of the same terms in the same syntactic arrangement, the differencebeing in the degree of confidence.No empirical statement is wholly non-theoretical in this sense, because evidence is never complete, nor is any prediction probably ever made wholly without evidence. "Learning is adjustment,or adaptation to a situation." But of what stuff are adjustments and adaptationsmade? Are they data, or inferences from data? "Learning is improvement."But improvement in what? And from whose point of view? "Learning is restoration of equilibrium." "Learning is problem solving." But what are the physical dimensions of a problem or of a solution? When we try to say // why // reinforcement has this effect, theories arise. Learning is said to take place because the reinforcement is pleasant, satisfying, tension reducing, and so on. The converse process of extinction is explained with comparable theories. If the rate of responding is first raised to a high point by reinforcement and reinforcement then withheld, the response is observed to occur less and less frequently thereafter.

One theory contends that this shows spontaneous recovery from some sort of inhibition, but another explanation is possible. No matter how carefully an animal is handled, the stimulation coincident with the beginningof an experiment must be extensive and unlike anything occurring in the later part of an experimental period.Responses have been reinforced in the presence of, or shortly following, the organism is again placed in the experimental situation, the stimulation is this stimulation. The only way to achieve full extinction in the presence of the stimulation of starting an experiment is to start the experiment repeatedly. Periodic reinforcement is not, however, a simple solution. If we reinforce on a regular schedule—say, every minute the organism soon forms a discrimination.

Learning theory is illustrated by terms like // preferring, //choosing, discriminating, and // matching. //An effort may be made to define these solely in terms of behavior, but in traditional practice they refer to processes in another dimensional system.

=Descartes' Baby=

Preface & Chapter 1 (1st 1/2)
Bloom suggests that humans are nothing more than machines, in that "the conscious self arises from a purely physical brain."

He goes on to explain, in the first chapter, how humans are dualistic thinkers, and interpret the physical world and the mental world as being somewhat separate, and develop differently. While the physical, or material, world is controlled by static laws that we largely understand from birth the minds of others is a topic that, while most of us are born with some interest in it, we do not necessarily have much understanding of.