Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T03:50:28.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Operant Conditioning and a Paradox of Teleology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Jon Ringen
Jon Ringen*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Indiana University at South Bend
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ambiguity to which Porpora (1980) objects in Wright's (1972, 1976) analysis of goal-directedness permits certain counterexamples to Porpora's analysis to be easily accommodated by Wright's. As a consequence, Ringen's (1976) claim that some operant behavior is goal-directed is in accord with Wright's analysis and with certain features of common sense that Wright's analysis captures. However, the way our commonsense conception of goal-directedness accommodates some of the counterexamples to Porpora's analysis suggests an intimate connection between goal-directedness and intentional notions like belief and desire. This suggests a possible criticism of Ringen and highlights problematic aspects of contemporary folk psychology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 565 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I am indebted to Jay Semel, Director of University House, University of Iowa, for making the facilities of University House available to me during fall semester, 1983. Without that help, this paper would not have been written. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, spring, 1984.

References

REFERENCES

Braithwaite, R. (1953), Scientific Explanation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. (1979), Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. (1978), Brainstorms. Montgomery: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Nissen, L. (1983), “Discussion: Wright on Teleological Descriptions of Goal-Directed Behavior”, Philosophy of Science 50: 151–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porpora, D. (1980), “Operant Conditioning and Teleology”, Philosophy of Science 47: 568–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porpora, D. (1983), “On the Post-Wittgensteinian Critique of the Concept of Action in Sociology”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 13: 129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. (1960), Word and Object. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ringen, J. (1976), “Explanation, Teleology, and Operant Conditioning: A Study of the Experimental Analysis of Purposive Behavior”, Philosophy of Science 43: 223–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, R. (1965), “Mind-Body Identity, Privacy and Categories”, The Review of Metaphysics 19: 24–54.Google Scholar
Scheffler, I. (1963), The Anatomy of Inquiry. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
Stich, S. (1983), From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science: The Case Against Belief. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1964), The Explanation of Behaviour. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Woodfield, A. (1976), Teleology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, L. (1972), “Explanation and Teleology”, Philosophy of Science 39: 204–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, L. (1976), Teleological Explanations. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, L. (1978), “The Ins and Outs of Teleology: A Critical Examination of Woodfield”, Inquiry 21: 223–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar