Lies and Behaviorism

Is behaviorism still a thing? Apparently, it is still making inroads, or ruts, in education (See here, here, and here). I guess some bad ideas have a slow, slow death. Well, let's remind ourselves why behaviorism is so, so wrong-headed. Let's do this by observing the all-too-common lie.

Can naturalism save us from naturalism?

In their latest article "Neuroexistentialism" for The Philosophers' Magazine (found here), Owen Flanagan and Gregg D. Caruso argue that we have entered a third-wave of existentialism, namely neuroexistentialism. To quote, "Today, there is a third-wave existentialism, neuroexistentialism, which expresses the anxiety that, even as science yields the truth about human nature, it also disenchants." No doubt, the ascendency of science and scientists as the sole authorities on every area of human nature has created a sense of disenchantment. We are told that we have no free will, that our moral decision making is determined by physical processes, and that in fact there is no more to the human person than the physical self. The old meaning-makers, God and the soul, have been cast aside for the hard, cold facts of science and a thoroughly material universe. But, let's be honest, this is a reality of our own choosing. And, it's based on limits we have constructed for ourselves and then accepted.

The next step in evolution?

By now you have probably seen more than one article claiming that the next step in human evolution will be a kind of merge between humans and technology. Andy Clark's recent article "We are merging with robots. That's a good thing" (found here) is just one example. One of the interesting things about this claim is that it ignores one principle tenet of (Darwinian) evolution. Up to this point, most naturalists have assumed that evolution has been unguided. But, whatever will happen with humans as we become ever more immersed within and potentially merge with technology, it is certain that it need not be unguided. In fact, if we are thinking aright about these things, we will guide it as best we can.

A working word that does no work

"Supervenience" is a fancy way of saying, "I have no idea how the physical and mental are related."
 

Towers of Babel, Universal Agreement, and Consequences

There are precious few understandings that produce universal agreement among those who could understand. It seems reasonable that mathematical understandings, logical understandings, and scientific understandings are the best candidates; and a precious few indeed. What does this mean and is it good?

The No-Driving Mechanic

Imagine a mechanic who cannot drive.

Does the Scientific Method Employ a Logical Fallacy?

In The Limitation of Bacon's Scientific Method Jacob Schriftman suggests that the scientific method is based on the formal logical fallacy commonly known as "Affirming the Consequent."  If correct, this is an astounding claim.  Could it be that the scientific method is founded on bad reasoning?  In this post I will attempt to explain the suggestion made by Schriftman and then I will share my thoughts on the implications.