

It got eaten - fogus
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n13/peter-godfrey-smith/it-got-eaten

======
telemachos
The title of this submission is a bit misleading. The linked article is a
review of a new book by Jerry Fodor (and others) attacking Darwinism in
biology. The Chomsky review (which devastated Skinner's behaviorism) is
mentioned in the first few paragraphs, but it's not the focus of _this_ piece.

That said, Fodor makes some very interesting reading when he attacks
evolutionary psychology. See this article, for example:
[http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n02/jerry-fodor/the-trouble-with-
ps...](http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n02/jerry-fodor/the-trouble-with-
psychological-darwinism)

~~~
igravious
The Chomsky review (which apparently devastated Skinner's behaviourism) is
mentioned in the first few paragraphs because the author of the review, Peter
Godfrey-Smith, claims that similarities between behaviouralism and Darwinism
have been pointed out. In the second last paragraph of this long review he
says:

"The similarities between behaviourist learning theory and Darwinian
evolutionary theory are not as close as Skinner or, now, Fodor and Piattelli-
Palmarini claim, even if the theories have structural resemblances.
Behaviourist learning theory, as applied to humans, has been largely
abandoned, but that doesn’t mean that Darwinism’s theory asks to be abandoned
along with it. Still, if one view is right and the other wrong, we might try
to say something about why a certain pattern of explanation works in one place
and not in the other."

Chomsky's review is not the focus of the piece but it is bound up in the back
and forth of ideas under the microscope here. You are correct though, the
title of the submission is misleading.

I found the arguments very hard to follow even though I am pretty well read up
on the mechanics of the theory of evolution and even though I have some
philosophical training. This is one of those instances where I'd need to read
the book I guess. I'm not sure if it is Godfrey-Smith's fault for not
explaining Fodor's and Piattelli-Palmarini's position well or whether their
position is unsellable. Seemed very hair-splitting to me.

~~~
telemachos
Fair enough, but my point was just that the title here might mislead people if
(like me) they were already familiar with the legend of "Chomsky's review of
_Verbal Behavior_." I went to the article expecting it to be a cultural
history of that review. (You know the sort of thing I mean: one of these now
popular histories that starts from something very specific - a product, or an
event or what-have-you - and then spins a larger historical/cultural
investigation from that starting point. Someone should write that book
actually: a semi-popular history of the shift away from behaviorism.) Not a
huge deal, but I was confused.

~~~
igravious
I never heard of this legend but maybe if you're coming from sociology or
psychology rather than philosophy like I am then this is famous-ish. I'd read
a book like the one describe for sure, I love Chomsky and never had much love
for behaviourism and am delighted to find that I'm in such hallowed company.
By the way I was completely agreeing with you earlier but just expanding on
what you had said and I shall do so in kind again sir: very misleading title.

------
jacobolus
For anyone who never read Chomsky’s review of _Verbal Behaior_ , the text is
at Chomsky’s website, here: <http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1967----.htm>

His review of Skinner’s _Beyond Freedom and Dignity_ , several years later,
was also pretty devastating: <http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19711230.htm>

------
diego_moita
This post title is trolling. The article is actually about a book that tries
to criticize evolution in the way social "sciences" are made: a thick haze of
theory and very scarce empirical data.

Might be interesting for those that think that social sciences are worth
respect, in spite of their flaby methodologies.

