On behavioristic versus neurophysiologic accounts of psychotic behavior

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7 (3):289-303 (1982)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Skinner has made significant contributions to the science of the behavior of organisms, including human ones, especially through his emphasis on observable behavior. He has correctly placed psychology among the biological sciences. My disagreement with his position stems from his apparent belief that a knowledge of the pertinent neurophysiology is not necessary (though perhaps desirable) to an explanation of the behavior of an organism. I believe this is a significant conceptual shortcoming, and that correcting it will bring psychology into a more consistent position with the biological sciences in general. CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,394

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-14

Downloads
44 (#506,245)

6 months
8 (#587,211)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references