Against Empiricism: Chomsky's Review of Skinner' Verbal Behavior By 1419 in 1419's Diary Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 11:04:35 PM EST Tags: chomsky, skinner, verbal behavior, language, linguistics, empiricism (all tags)
	A quick look at one of the "one of the most influential articles in the history of the cognitive sciences." as listed here http://cogprints.org/1148/. In it Chomsky attacks... empiricism? It's good to see that Cognitive "Science" is premised on the rejection of empiricism. It's no wonder that Skinner has been quoted as describing Cognitive Science as the Creationism of Psychology.

Chomsky published his now legendary attack on Skinner's Verbal Behavior in 1959. The full text for those of you who haven't had the pleasure of reading this pamphlet is here: http://cogprints.org/1148/00/chomsky.htm Skinner never replied to this "review" - which hardly merits that name. It is, however, quite correctly "an attack". It is a polemic. However, it is not a polemic against B.F.Skinner as Skinner's critics (many of them determinists like Skinner - but perhaps genetic or physioligical unlike Skinner, or non-Skinnerian Behaviorists blistering from his attacks, or anti-Behaviorists of various persuasions, or Anti-Empiricists of many sorts who simply didn't care for science, empiricism or the notion of objective reality) would like to pretend. Chomsky is very very clear about his pamphlet. It is a polemic against science. It is a tirade against empiricism as a whole not Behaviorism particularly. In fact, I will give you a quote to this effect: "I had intended this review not specifically as a criticism of Skinner's speculations regarding language but rather as a more general critique of behaviorist (I would now prefer to say "empiricist") speculation as to the nature of higher mental processes." And he makes his point clearly here (italics added) that Behaviorism is just Empiricism rearing its ugly head: And, "I do not, in other words, see any way in which his proposals can be substantially improved within the general framework of behaviorist or neobehaviorist, or, more generally, empiricist ideas that has dominated much of modern linguistics, psychology, and philosophy. The conclusion that I hoped to establish in the review, by discussing these speculations in their most explicit and detailed form, was that the general point of view was largely mythology, and that its widespread acceptance is not the result of empirical support, persuasive reasoning, or the absence of a plausible alternative." Thus, unless I am mistaken, "The Empirical approach [to language and mind] is mythology" might be a way to concisely summarize his position. A rebuttal was made a little while later here: "On Chomsky's review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior" Reviewed by Kenneth MacCorquodale http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1333660&blobtype=pdf It is highly technical, civil and doesn't have any of the slanderous flavor and misrepresentations that Chomsky's has. Skinner, in a public speech[1] and as far as I know the only point at which he publicly commented on Chomsky, describes it simply: Chomsky was an unknown who sent him a short type written manuscript that didn't understand his work (see my previous posting comparing Skinner's tome to Chomsky's pamphlet). It appeared in print a little while later. An attack on his work like many others that misrepresented his ideas, associated him with positions he didn't have, and deliberately muddled his positions to make them attackable (a "straw man" or two). Why respond? But, as Skinner notes, Chomsky's star "rose". Linguistics finding itself without a fad to bolster itself found new strength in, as Chomsky puts it, the rich tradition of rationalist psychology and linguistics. But what is rationalist psychology? Well, Wikipedia is often helpful,except when it's not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism So rationalism is often contrasted with empiricism. And Chomsky says that he wasn't really beefing with Skinner as much as "the empirical approach" generally. So it is quite interesting that people who consider themselves empiricists are willing to accept an enemy of empiricism. How could this be? And do Chomsky's friends know they are rejecting empiricism? Do they want their next medicine to be deduced to be safe via rationalist intuition? [1]Skinner's lecture "On Having A poem": You can get a copy of the .rm file here (it's 60 minutes or so): http://www.bfskinner.org/ (in shitty Real Player format only).

Poll

I was aware that Chomsky rejected Empiricism Because he has taken many valiant stands against empiricism 16% Because he defends Rationalism whenver he can 33% Because US foreign policy is clearly Empiricist, so what else could he do? 16% No, I wasn't aware of his anti-empiricism. 83% Votes: 6 Results | Other Polls

Related Links

http://cog prints.org/1148/ http://cog prints.org/1148/00/chomsky.htm http://www .pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1333660&blobtype=pdf http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism http://www .bfskinner.org/ 1419's Diary