This view which suggests that the naively perceived natural world is not the final arbiter does not

This view which suggests that the naively perceived natural world is not the final arbiter does not

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: This view which suggests that the naively perceived natural world is not the final arbiter does not imply that "an invisible gorilla stole your money not me" is a legal explanation. Our paradigm does not allow the self-serving postulation of invisible thieves. For example, even if Freudian theory claimed that it is not wrong simply because it presumes something and then goes out to look for examples of what it already knows to be true" (e.g., science presumes conservation of matter and therefore sees the coin move; whereas a Freudian psychology presumes id, ego, and superego, and "sees" id-ego conflict) then, the Freudian paradigm is refutable on the grounds that it is not as parsimonious as the paradigm emphasizing reinforcement. The paradigm emphasizing reinforcement accounts for a very broad range of behavior in a very broad range of life forms. The priority of evaluation may be seen behavior in a very broad range of life forms....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 11/09/2011 for the course PSY PSY2012 taught by Professor Scheff during the Fall '09 term at Broward College.

Page1 / 2

This view which suggests that the naively perceived natural world is not the final arbiter does not

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online