Jim_Wynne
Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote (NoName @ July 14 2015,08:15) | | Quote (midwifetoad @ July 14 2015,08:54) | | Are we going to do for Skinner what creationists do for Darwin? |
Not necessary.
Skinner seems to be largely ignored, and I would say rightly so.
His error is obvious -- 'observe' is neither behaviorally definable nor susceptible to meangful use. |
One of the basic things that GG doesn't understand about science (one of many) is the value of failure. There is a quote attributed to Thomas Edison and his search for a viable material for the filament of his light bulb: I haven't failed; I now know a thousand things that won't work. When we were discussing the nature of models (and models of nature), GG was presented with the well-known George Box statement that all models are wrong but some are useful. GG's model is apparently the sole exception; he claims that is model is correct in all respects, thus revealing his profound ignorance of basic principles.
Feynman jumps to mind in this regard as well: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." And the easiest person to fool is even easier to fool when that person is a fool. We all want results to comport with our hypotheses and expectations, but when they don't, we know another thing that won't work. Not GG, though.
--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT
|
