• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior >Evasion private events and pragmatism: A Reply to Moores response to my review of Conceptual Foundations of Radical Behaviorism
【2h】

Evasion private events and pragmatism: A Reply to Moores response to my review of Conceptual Foundations of Radical Behaviorism

机译：逃避私人活动和实用主义：对摩尔对我对激进行为主义概念基础的评论的回应

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Moore's screed in response to my review of his book uses several rhetorical tricks to counter criticism without actually addressing it: he tries to preempt the transparency of his own orthodoxy by groundlessly accusing me of orthodoxy; he caricatures my criticisms to make them appear obviously wrong; he professes lack of understanding so as to dodge having to attempt a genuine response; and he engages in pejorative labeling to dismiss the criticisms without analysis. From a scientific and pragmatic point of view, private events are a mistake, precisely because they are private. They cannot serve as independent variables, as Moore suggests, because they cannot be measured; “private independent variable” is a contradiction in terms. When we carefully examine locutions like “observe” and “report on,” we discover that they entail only public verbal and nonverbal behavior, not objects and not private events as objects. A person in pain is not reporting on anything, is engaging in public verbal and nonverbal pain-behavior, and an infant or a dog may be considered to be in pain. The public behavior is all that matters, because determining whether a person is really in pain privately is impossible. The same is true of any private event, and the control of the public behavior on which the verbal community comments lies in the public environment. We cannot have two sets of principles, one for verbal behavior and one for nonverbal behavior or one for humans and one for other animals.
机译：摩尔在回应我对他的书的评论时使用了一些修辞手法，以反驳批评而没有实际解决它：他试图通过毫无根据地指责我为正教来抢占自己正统的透明度；他讽刺我的批评，使他们看起来显然是错误的；他自称缺乏理解力，以躲避必须做出真正回应的情况；他从事贬义标签，以不经分析就驳斥批评。从科学和务实的角度来看，私人事件是一个错误，正因为它们是私人的。正如摩尔所建议的那样，它们不能充当自变量，因为无法对其进行度量。从术语上来说，“私有自变量”是一个矛盾。当我们仔细检查诸如“观察”和“报告”之类的语言时，我们发现它们仅涉及公共的言语和非言语行为，而不涉及宾语，而没有私人事件作为宾语。处于痛苦中的人没有任何举报，正在从事公共言语和非言语的痛苦行为，婴儿或狗可能被视为处于痛苦中。公开的行为至关重要，因为要确定一个人是否真的在痛苦中是不可能的。对于任何私人事件，言语社区在公共环境中对公共行为的控制也是如此。我们不能有两套原则，一套用于言语行为，一套用于非语言行为，一套用于人类，另一套用于其他动物。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号