Keith;
I was confused
#1 The paper on Emergentism lists Watson as a reductionist, although I would
suggest his reduction to the physical sciences was more hype than a well
thought out theory and behaviorism is inconsistent in its reductive stance.
#2 You list Comte as an emergentist. I understand Comte as a phenomenalist
in some ways similar to the logical positivists and not a materialist. How
is Comte an emergentist?
#3 Comte was influential on Skinner; and Tolman (speaking about positivism in
a 1991 book) concluded that behaviorism was not materialist but
phenomenalist. Could behaviorists be emergentist, but be stuck in
methodological individualism?
The above may be somewhat misguided, but I'll venture 1 additional question.
Is it possible that much science is firmly reductionist and individualist in
methodology but, inconsistent in ontology (and, due to lack of philosophical
thinking, may be not much interested in the question). Can emergentism be a
way of exposing and resolving some inconsistencies?
Thanks for the opportunity to read your papers
Howard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 08 2002 - 12:53:46 PDT