Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cornell.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!grkermi!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!melanie
From: melanie@cornell.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Behaviourism
Message-ID: <2364@cornell.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 16:19:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: cornell.2364
Posted: Mon Jun 10 16:19:58 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Jun-85 05:32:36 EDT
Sender: melanie@cornell.UUCP
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept.
Lines: 21

From: melanie (Melanie Nesheim)

    Well, actually, (in response to Tim Maroney) I have met people 
who *did* feel that Skinner's behaviourism provided nearly all 
the answers.  That sort of thinking bothers me...  I guess it's
because I've trained horses and in doing so learned that there 
is a lot more going on than stimulus-response, contrary to what 
my behaviourist friends have said.
    Also, in psychology courses where I learned about behavourism
I got the distinct impression that, like many in psychology who 
come up with a viable theory and are excited about it, Skinner 
felt that behaviourism provided most of the answers, and that a 
lot of people agreed with him for quite some time (and many still do).
In other words, there is more to it than just the scientific,
objective approach that it provided.
    So, like Dan B., I have come to regard behaviourism as a
a theory that's on the deterministic end of the scale.  

            --Melanie Nesheim