I have finally started to look at some of the exam questions in more
depth and it seems to me that what I thought I knew to be easy and
straightforward has proved more complex.
Despite having spent many hours on the Skinner paper I am still
having difficulty expanding fully on the question:
'What was wrong about behaviourism?'
Am I right in understanding that:
- there is no clear definition as to what is undertstood by
- it makes no attempt to answer the 'how' question,
- it cannot be used to explain intelligence,
- it cannot explain language,
- it cannot explain complex perceptual mechanisms and processes such
as pattern recognition?
Beyond these points I feel I am struggling, please could you expand
further on these or point me in the right direction.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:41 GMT