If I understand the later research, the criticism is that Skinner projected rather than observed repeating behaviors in the pigeons. Skinner was associating the corner-touching with the pigeons more than the pigeons were associating the corner-touching with the food.
Scientific problem solving includes falsification, and that’s what’d I’d offer as a right interpretation / good way to minimize cargo-cult solutions. Non-scientific problem solving includes anything you like and the provisional proof is found only in the proverbial pudding.
The link contends the terminology used to describe superstitious behaviour. It doesn’t claim that an arbitrary schedule of reinforcement has no effect on the pigeon behaviour.
Really? I hadn’t heard that; so what’s the right interpretation?
If I understand the later research, the criticism is that Skinner projected rather than observed repeating behaviors in the pigeons. Skinner was associating the corner-touching with the pigeons more than the pigeons were associating the corner-touching with the food.
Scientific problem solving includes falsification, and that’s what’d I’d offer as a right interpretation / good way to minimize cargo-cult solutions. Non-scientific problem solving includes anything you like and the provisional proof is found only in the proverbial pudding.
Cite please.
Skinner avoided appeals to internal states and demonstrated how schedules of reinforcement affected behaviour.
http://tinyurl.com/6gu6p2
That goes to the Wikipedia entry on Skinner, sub-section ‘Superstition of the Pigeon.’
The link contends the terminology used to describe superstitious behaviour. It doesn’t claim that an arbitrary schedule of reinforcement has no effect on the pigeon behaviour.