Is operant selectionism coherent?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):558-559 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Hull et al.'s analysis of operant behavior in terms of interaction and replication does not seem consistent with a genuine selection model. The putative replicators do not replicate, and the overall process is more reminiscent of directed mutation than of natural selection. General analogies between natural selection and operant reinforcement are too superficial to be of much scientific use.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,990

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

Do operant behaviors replicate?Todd Grantham - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):538-539.
On the origins of complexity.Bruce E. Hesse & Gary Novak - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):540-541.
Selection in operant learning may fit a general model.Julian C. Leslie - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):542-543.
Selection without multiple replicators?John W. Pepper & Thorbjørn Knudsen - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):550-551.
Natural selection and operant behavior.Wanda Wyrwicka - 1984 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7 (4):501-502.
Operant behavior and the thesis of “selection by consequences”.J. Moore - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):546-547.
At last: Serious consideration.David L. Hull, Rodney E. Langman & Sigrid S. Glenn - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):559-569.
Operant conditioning and natural selection.Andrew M. Colman - 1984 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7 (4):684-685.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
45 (#344,502)

6 months
7 (#592,073)

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