Skinner: From Determinism to Random Variation

Behavior and Philosophy 25 (1):3 - 28 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The assumption that Skinner was a determinist requires some modification. Although Skinner may have favored determinism to varying degrees while he was advancing mechanistic accounts of behavior that were aligned with the views such as those of Loeb, Watson, and Russell, his advancement of determinism disappeared after his accounts became more closely aligned with selectionist views such as those of Mach, Peirce, and Dewey. This realignment entailed a switch from finding origins or sources for behavior in deterministic laws to finding origins or sources for behavior in random variation. Some sense of the conflict between these views appears early on in Skinner's writing, and arguments in favor of both of these views can be found in sources that Skinner identified in his writings. Although there were good reasons for Skinner to accept determinism when he was advancing a mechanistic behaviorism, there were also good reasons for Skinner to abandon determinism when he was advancing a selectionist behaviorism.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,314

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
45 (#516,855)

6 months
5 (#702,808)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The Two Skinners, Modern and Postmodern.Roy A. Moxley - 1999 - Behavior and Philosophy 27 (2):97 - 125.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references