1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
great overviews, 7 Jan 2011
This review is from: The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Hardcover)
this will be a short and simple review.
i'm a philosophy 2nd year and find this book incredibly useful, in fact i probably fall back on it too much. the purpose of this book is to provide bried overviews of uncountable topics, which i know is invaluable to me because sometimes you just dont even know where to start.
each entry is written by different people and helpfully cross-reference with other topics for more depth.
i have a paperback version, which yes is huge but what else do you expect? for this money, it's an incredible useful bargain.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
excellent, 9 Jan 2001
By A Customer
This review is from: The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Hardcover)
Plain and Simple. An excellent philosophy reference. It's got the lot, from Socrates, Godel, Marx...no Aleister Crowley though, mmmnnn. Recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Comprehensive but can be ignorant, 25 Oct 2007
This review is from: The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Hardcover)
I spent a few days browsing thru, to get a rough idea of what areas of philosophy I might do well to study more. For that purpose, this book seemed good.
I was alarmed, however, to find in the entry for "Skinner, Burrhus Frederick" this statement: "Both it [i.e. scientific behaviorism] and radical behaviorism have been obviated by the development of a computational theory of the mind." That's false. Radical behaviorism is the philosophy of behavior that informs the science of applied behavior analysis, of which there are thousands of practicing analysts and thousands of clients benefitting from those analysts. Computational theories of the mind are speculative, tend toward "mentalism" ( fictitous explanation) and, as yet, have yielded little if any practical benefit. Skinner expected that (physical) brain science would advance and welcomed that, but behaviorism is operating at a different level and is not invalidated by advances in brain science. Limitations in any theory of the mind, computational or otherwise, were precisely what led Skinner to a behaviorist approach. The emergence of computational theories of the mind presents nothing to lessen the problems Skinner recognizes were inherent in theories of the mind. On the contrary, study of Radical Behaviorism is all the more important so that the fictitous aspects of such theories be recognized. It was no accident that in the March 1994 issue of the American Psychological Society's magazine "Observer", president Roddy Roediger, a cognitive psychologist, in his article "What Happened to Behaviorism", suggested celebrating "the power of behavioristic analyses...even if you are one of the cognitive psychologists who believe behaviorism is irrelevant, passe and/or dead. It isn't".
Computational theories of the mind may seem intriguing, but they hardly obviate Radical Behaviorism. That such an ignorant statement was published makes me wonder about how many other similar false statements are in this book.
See if the following doesn't seem a more wise and professional way of handling the differences between the cognitive and behaviorist positions. It's from G.E. Zuriff's review of Lattal's and Chase's "Behavior Theory and Philosophy" and appeared in May 2005 issue The Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior:
"In principle, there are no decisive philosophical objections to a cognitive theory. Practically, however, there is ample disagreement over whether such a theory will, in fact, generate fruitful research progress. Cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience are betting that such a theory is feasible, whereas SIB [ Skinner Inspired Behaviorism ] seems committed to its unlikelihood."
An encyclopedia entry on the father of an active and fruitful philosophy and science is no place for ignorant or biased dismissal.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No