Article Abstract:
Horne and Lowe's analysis of stimulus equivalence does not provide adequate illumination on the topic of symbolization and language in general, and naming capacity in particular. In addition, their conception of associative equivalence between name and object is actually trivial. What needs to be explained and studied instead is how to properly manage the correct association of names to things. The experimental analysis of naming behavior merely assumes that the connection is present .
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
The arguments of Horne and Lowe in their paper on naming are characterized by certain interpretative and logical difficulties. The data that they used do not adequately demonstrate that classes emerge when there is naming and that classes do not occur when there is no naming. Actually, their data merely reveal that class formation fails to occur when there is naming and that classes emerge if naming is not present. However, these do not support the naming hypothesis.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
Horne and Lowe's paper on naming fails to adequately illuminate on the contingencies that influence the classes created by naming, and the status of covert behavior. There are two possible explanations for this limitation. One is that the human capacity to develop higher order behavior classes is not the same as that of other species. Another is that humans have unique differential sensitivity to properties of their own covert behavior.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: