Keep in mind that the definition of behavior is tied to the framework in which it is being studied, and "behavioral sciences" is not a single framework. There's a good discussion of this issue in Ruth Millikan's article "What is Behavior ?" at She concludes: "What distinguishes the core life sciences from the physical sciences is not a difference in the natural kinds being studied, but in the point of departure for the study. What is logically first for the core life sciences is the study of proper or normal function." So, functional descriptions of behavior (e.g. "grooming") meaningfully differ from physical descriptions (e.g. "tactile contact"), and the former are emphasized in life sciences; the latter in physical sciences. The radical behaviorist tradition dealt with behavior almost as if it were a physical science, whereas biological traditions deal with it in terms of hypothetical biological functions. kind regards, Todd
http://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/millikan6.html
Replies:
There are no replies to this message.
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.