This paper reconstructs the American reception of logical positivism in the early 1930s. I argue that Moritz Schlick (who had visiting positions at Stanford and Berkeley between 1929 and 1932) and Herbert Feigl (who visited Harvard in the 1930-31 academic year) played a crucial role in promoting the *Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung*, years before members of the Vienna Circle, the Berlin Group, and the Lvov-Warsaw school would seek refuge in the United States. Building on archive material from the Wiener Kreis Archiv, the (...) Harvard University Archives, and the Herbert Feigl Papers, as well as a large number of publications in American philosophy journals from the early 1930s, I reconstruct the subtle transformation of the American philosophical landscape in the years immediately preceding the European exodus. I argue that (1) American philosophical discussions about meaning and significance and (2) internal dynamics in the Vienna Circle between 1929 and 1931 significantly impacted the way in which US philosophers came to perceive logical positivism. (shrink)

in april 1933, two bright young Ph.D.s were elected to the Harvard Society of Fellows: the psychologist B. F. Skinner and the philosopher/logician W. V. Quine. Both men would become among the most influential scholars of their time; Skinner leads the "Top 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century," whereas philosophers have selected Quine as the most important Anglophone philosopher after the Second World War.1 At the height of their fame, Skinner and Quine became "Edgar Pierce twins"; the latter (...) obtaining the endowed chair at Harvard's department of philosophy, the former taking up the position at Harvard's psychology department.2Besides these biographical parallels, there also... (shrink)

This monograph introduces the functional characteristics and conceptual significance of a simulation software system called CyberRat (Ray, 1996a, 2003a, 2012a, 2012b). CyberRat expands upon prior illustrations (Ray & Delprato, 1989; Ray, 1992) of how such computer-based simulations can serve to formatively enhance, and eventually validate, the descriptive research methodology upon which their development relies. To illustrate this process I also review highlights of previous publications (cf. Ray & Brown, 1975, 1976; Ray & Delprato, 1989), detailing the unique research methodology used (...) to collect data that guided CyberRat’s development. This methodology integrates interbehavioral psychology (Kantor, 1959) and general systems analysis (von Bertalanffy, 1968), and thus is referred to as interbehavioral systems analysis (IBSA). CyberRat’s validation of IBSA methods involves a process analogous to Turing’s (1950) famous test for simulation authenticity, in that it relies upon “phenomenological equivalence” criteria for observers to compare experiences of real vs. simulated events. And because IBSA stresses three convergent strategies for research, including structural analysis, functional analysis, and operations analysis, my organizing theme addresses how closely CyberRat comes to passing a trilogy of hypothetical Turing tests—one for each of these three analytic strategies. (shrink)

Logic and Information K. Devlin, 1991 Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 336 pp.The Legacy of B.F. Skinner: concepts and perspectives, controversies and misunderstandings. Robert D. Nye, Pacific Grove, CA, Brooks/Cole.Images and Understanding: thoughts about images, ideas about understanding. H.B. Barlow, CM. Blakemore & M. Weston‐Smith, Eds, 1990 Cambridge, Cambridge University Press xiii + 401 pp.Descriptions Stephen Neale, 1990 Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

We owe most scientific knowledge to methods of inquiry that are never formally analyzed. The analysis of behavior does not call for hypothetico-deductive methods. Statistics, taught in lieu of scientific method, is incompatible with major features of much laboratory research. Squeezing significance out of ambiguous data discourages the more promising step of scrapping the experiment and starting again. As a consequence, psychologists have taken flight from the laboratory. They have fled to Real People and the human interest of “real life,” (...) to Mathematical Models and the elegance of symbolic treatments, to the Inner Man and the explanatory preoccupation with inferred internal mechanisms, and to Laymanship and its appeal to “common sense.” An experimental analysis provides an alternative to these divertissements.The “theories” to which objection is raised here are not the basic assumptions essential to any scientific activity or statements that are not yet facts, but rather explanations which appeal to events taking place somewhere else, at some other level of observation, described in different terms, and measured, if at all, in different dimensions. Three types of learning theories satisfy this definition: physiological theories attempting to reduce behavior to events in the nervous system; mentalistic theories appealing to inferred inner events; and theories of the Conceptual Nervous System offered as explanatory models of behavior. It would be foolhardy to deny the achievements of such theories in the history of science. The question of whether they are necessary, however, has other implications.Experimental material in three areas illustrates the function of theory more concretely. Alternatives to behavior ratios, excitatory potentials, and so on demonstrate the utility of rate or probability of response as the basic datum in learning. Functional relations between behavior and environmental variables provide an account of why learning occurs. Activities such as preferring, choosing, discriminating, and matching can be dealt with solely in terms of behavior, without referring to processes in another dimensional system. The experiments are not offered as demonstrating that theories are not necessary but to suggest an alternative. Theory is possible in another sense. Beyond the collection of uniform relationships lies the need for a formal representation of the data reduced to a minimal number of terms. A theoretical construction may yield greater generality than any assemblage of facts; such a construction will not refer to another dimensional system. (shrink)

Interpretações históricas do percurso científico inicial de Skinner destacam as inovações teóricas, empíricas e instrumentais de seu esboço de uma ciência do comportamento. Apesar desse empenho historiográfico, um aspecto tem sido tratado de modo secundário na análise dessa fase da carreira de Skinner, a saber, os impactos dos contextos institucionais da universidade de Harvard nos rumos de sua trajetória e ciência. O objetivo deste artigo é investigar esse aspecto por meio da apreciação das práticas institucionalizadas dos Departamentos de Psicologia e (...) de Fisiologia Geral daquela universidade, e suas relações com a emergência da proposta científica de Skinner e suas peculiaridades teóricas e metodológicas. De acordo com nossa interpretação, singularidades dos primórdios da ciência skinneriana são compreendidas de modo mais amplo quando identificadas as condições institucionais que permitiram a Skinner se distanciar do mainstream da psicologia experimental estadunidense. Por fim, sugerimos que embora este estudo refira-se à história de um eminente cientista, em um momento e cenário histórico específicos, ele serve para ilustrar o papel de controles sociais, inerentes à prática científica, nos rumos da carreira de cientistas e suas produções intelectuais. Historical interpretations of the initial career of B. F. Skinner include theoretical and empirical innovations of his stub of a behavioral science. Despite this historiographical commitment, one aspect has been treated as secondary in the analysis of this phase of Skinner's career, namely, the impacts of institutional context of Harvard University. The purpose of this article is to explore this aspect through the analysis of the institutionalized practices of the departments of psychology and general physiology of that university, and its relations with the emergence of the scientific proposal of Skinner and its peculiarities. According to our interpretation, some singularities of this proposal are more broadly understood as institutional conditions that enabled Skinner to distance himself from the mainstream of American experimental psychology. Finally, we suggest that even though this study refers to an eminent scientist at a specific historical context, it offers the possibility to illustrate the role of social controls inherent to scientific practices in the course of scientific careers. (shrink)

Skinner has been criticized for advancing essentialist interpretations of meaning in which meaning is treated as the property of a word or a grammatical form. Such a practice is consistent with a "words and things" view that sought to advance an ideal language as well as with S-R views that presented meaning as the property of a word form. These views imply an essentialist theory of meaning that would be consistent with Skinner's early S-R behaviorism. However, Skinner's more developed account (...) of meaning is based on his later selectionist behaviorism, and this account of meaning is aligned in many respects with the views of Darwin, Peirce, F. C. S. Schiller, Dewey, and Wittgenstein. After adopting a selectionist theory of meaning, it was inconsistent for Skinner to maintain essentialist practices although Skinner did so in response to influences that had little to do with his selectionist theory. Skinner's particular contribution to this pragmatic-selectionist tradition of meaning is the integration of meaning within his three-term contingency for operant behavior. In this account, meaning lies in the probabilistic functional relations of verbal behavior rather than in its form. (shrink)

Different accounts of Skinner's work are often in conflict. Some interpretations, for example, regard Skinner as a mechanist. Other interpretations regard Skinner as a selectionist. An alternative interpretation is to see Skinner as employing both views with changes in these views and their proportionate relations over time. To clarify these distinctions, it is helpful to see Skinner's work against the background of similar changes that have been taking place in Western Culture. An extended and overlapping shift in cultural values has (...) occurred from modernism to postmodernism. Some key distinctions in this shift are that modernism emphasizes abstract simplicity, permanent necessity, and absolutely certain sources of truth. Postmodernism emphasizes complex and concrete contexts, probability, and explanations of change in terms of consequences. Skinner shows a similarly extended and overlapping shift over time that results in separate sets of responses which may be regarded as two sides or two selves of Skinner: one an organized collection of responses aligned with modernism, another an organized collection of responses aligned with postmodernism. (shrink)

Identifying shapes in the visual noise that is the Rorschach test supposedly reveals more about the observer than the image and so do so-called auditory projective tests designed for those that cannot see. Mara Mills takes us on a stroll through her archival findings and shares some of these evocative and constitutively ambiguous objects, approached through a loss of contact with what appears to be.