3 ms·

The title of this submission is a bit misleading. The linked article is a review of a new book by Jerry Fodor (and others) attacking Darwinism in biology. The C

The title of this submission is a bit misleading. The linked article is a review of a new book by Jerry Fodor (and others) attacking Darwinism in biology. The Chomsky review (which devastated Skinner's behaviorism) is mentioned in the first few paragraphs, but it's not the focus of this piece. That said, Fodor makes some very interesting reading when he attacks evolutionary psychology. See this article, for example: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n02/jerry-fodor/the-trouble-with-psychological-darwinism http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n02/jerry-fodor/the-trouble-with-ps...

igravious 16y ago
The Chomsky review (which apparently devastated Skinner's behaviourism) is mentioned in the first few paragraphs because the author of the review, Peter Godfrey-Smith, claims that similarities between behaviouralism and Darwinism have been pointed out. In the second last paragraph of this long review he says: "The similarities between behaviourist learning theory and Darwinian evolutionary theory are not as close as Skinner or, now, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini claim, even if the theories have structural resemblances. Behaviourist learning theory, as applied to humans, has been largely abandoned, but that doesn’t mean that Darwinism’s theory asks to be abandoned along with it. Still, if one view is right and the other wrong, we might try to say something about why a certain pattern of explanation works in one place and not in the other." Chomsky's review is not the focus of the piece but it is bound up in the back and forth of ideas under the microscope here. You are correct though, the title of the submission is misleading. I found the arguments very hard to follow even though I am pretty well read up on the mechanics of the theory of evolution and even though I have some philosophical training. This is one of those instances where I'd need to read the book I guess. I'm not sure if it is Godfrey-Smith's fault for not explaining Fodor's and Piattelli-Palmarini's position well or whether their position is unsellable. Seemed very hair-splitting to me.
- telemachos 16y ago
  Fair enough, but my point was just that the title here might mislead people if (like me) they were already familiar with the legend of "Chomsky's review of Verbal Behavior." I went to the article expecting it to be a cultural history of that review. (You know the sort of thing I mean: one of these now popular histories that starts from something very specific - a product, or an event or what-have-you - and then spins a larger historical/cultural investigation from that starting point. Someone should write that book actually: a semi-popular history of the shift away from behaviorism.) Not a huge deal, but I was confused.
  - igravious 16y ago
    I never heard of this legend but maybe if you're coming from sociology or psychology rather than philosophy like I am then this is famous-ish. I'd read a book like the one describe for sure, I love Chomsky and never had much love for behaviourism and am delighted to find that I'm in such hallowed company. By the way I was completely agreeing with you earlier but just expanding on what you had said and I shall do so in kind again sir: very misleading title.

igravious 16y ago

The Chomsky review (which apparently devastated Skinner's behaviourism) is mentioned in the first few paragraphs because the author of the review, Peter Godfrey-Smith, claims that similarities between behaviouralism and Darwinism have been pointed out. In the second last paragraph of this long review he says: "The similarities between behaviourist learning theory and Darwinian evolutionary theory are not as close as Skinner or, now, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini claim, even if the theories have structural resemblances. Behaviourist learning theory, as applied to humans, has been largely abandoned, but that doesn’t mean that Darwinism’s theory asks to be abandoned along with it. Still, if one view is right and the other wrong, we might try to say something about why a certain pattern of explanation works in one place and not in the other." Chomsky's review is not the focus of the piece but it is bound up in the back and forth of ideas under the microscope here. You are correct though, the title of the submission is misleading. I found the arguments very hard to follow even though I am pretty well read up on the mechanics of the theory of evolution and even though I have some philosophical training. This is one of those instances where I'd need to read the book I guess. I'm not sure if it is Godfrey-Smith's fault for not explaining Fodor's and Piattelli-Palmarini's position well or whether their position is unsellable. Seemed very hair-splitting to me.

telemachos 16y ago
Fair enough, but my point was just that the title here might mislead people if (like me) they were already familiar with the legend of "Chomsky's review of Verbal Behavior." I went to the article expecting it to be a cultural history of that review. (You know the sort of thing I mean: one of these now popular histories that starts from something very specific - a product, or an event or what-have-you - and then spins a larger historical/cultural investigation from that starting point. Someone should write that book actually: a semi-popular history of the shift away from behaviorism.) Not a huge deal, but I was confused.
- igravious 16y ago
  I never heard of this legend but maybe if you're coming from sociology or psychology rather than philosophy like I am then this is famous-ish. I'd read a book like the one describe for sure, I love Chomsky and never had much love for behaviourism and am delighted to find that I'm in such hallowed company. By the way I was completely agreeing with you earlier but just expanding on what you had said and I shall do so in kind again sir: very misleading title.