Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
World Views
Obscure philosopher writes impenetrable book that baffles behaviorists 50 years later!
Stephen C. Pepper (1942) outlined four world views that may guide the analysis of events.
Formism Mechanism Organicism Contextualism
Formism:
All events are instances of specifiable forms, and thus Nerdy human with the purpose of analysis is to magnifying glass; know these forms and name goes around them. The formists' simple naming things. correspondence is nothing Must be a formist. more than the "truth" of common sense language. The formist assumes, without question, the ontological reality of the forms to be known and named.
An extended type of formism and its truth criterion is an Uh oh! Dangerous duck elaborated form of with mallet -- Wants to correspondence. smash me open to find out how I work: The mechanist assumes that the Must be a mechanist. universe is organized a priori into events, relations, and forces, and the truth is found through the construction of verbal formulae that reveal, via predictive verification, the assumed organization of the universe. The mechanist assumes, without question, the ontological reality of the to-be-revealed organization of the universe.
4
Organicism:
Death
Birth Infancy
The organicist assumes that there is a grand story evolving, in which all apparently contradictory elements will be found to be part of the evolving whole. Such a changing, developing organic system "tells a story" that can either be read correctly or not. Truth is the removal of all apparently contradictory elements so that they are seen to be part of the evolving whole: in a word, coherence. The organicist assumes, without question, the ontological reality of the evolving whole.
5
Summary:
Knowledge
In all three of these world views the analyst considers the task of analysis to be one of discovery -- literally, a matter of "taking the cover off" what is already there. The history of the analyst may influence how well the task is done, but it does not change its nature. This means that the analyst need not deal with the difficult issue of values -- of why a particular piece of knowledge is important. The analyst can appeal to the ontological basis of knowledge as a defense.
Reality
Contextualism
Blah, blah, blah. . .
Yippee! Im so satisfied!
Contextualism
Yippee! Im so satisfied!
Truth
Successful Working
Contextualism
I dont care about truth. All I want is a carrot.
Contextualism
Successful Working
Yippee! Im so satisfied!
Note that Pepper uses the term "wish." This implies that an analysis is true to the extent that it reaches the end, or takes one in the direction, that was important Thats more like it! before the action of Goals are foundational, analysis. for without them This is a crucial point, successful working because it means that cannot be defined! "successful working" is not foundational in contextualism. What is foundational is a consequence, end, purpose, or goal, in terms of which the truth criterion of successful working can be applied.
Truth
End/Purpose/Goals
10
Contextualism
No goals = No truth. Shit -- thats weird!
Successful Working Truth
Truth is Psychological:
If goals, consequences, purposes, and the like are foundational, then truth for the contextualist is inherently psychological, rather than ontological. Truth is defined in terms of Now hes worried. reaching a desired end (a If truth is based on goals, then what about psychological event), not in his precious reality? terms of uncovering the nature of reality.
End/Purpose/Goals
11
Contextualism
No reality? Oh God, I feel sick -- I want to sit down.
Successful Working Truth
Truth as Psychological:
Again, in Pepper's words:
. . . events can[not] correspond without an active operational juncture of one with the other, and there is [no] integration in any sense prior to the act of integrating there. [It is wrong to imply] that truth is a relation independent of the act of verifying. (Pepper, 1942, pp. 277)
End/Purpose/Goals
12
13
14
15
As I recall, I first came up with the idea for an operant chamber when I was hit on the head by a tortoise that had escaped from one of Tolmans mazes.
17
18
When confronted with this absurdity in behavior analysis, the most typical response is to argue that behavior-analytic truth is defined simply in terms of achieving the goals of prediction and control, with Thats all you want? sufficient scope, precision, and What a sad depth.
End/Purpose/Goals
19
End/Purpose/Goals
20
But I dont want you to bite my toe!, So, I can talk about that ontologically to stop you.
That does not mean that ontological talk must be abandoned, however, because it may be useful at times to speak ontologically. With that caveat, the pragmatic behavior analyst takes the view that we cannot Neat trick take ontological talk (or any Contextualist. talk) literally as it applies to You guys are really an underlying philosophy of slippery! science or an underlying reality, because truth is just successful working -- no more and no less.
End/Purpose/Goals
21