Are you joking?
The whole point of Skinnerian Behaviorism is that human behaviour and animal behaviour are closely akin and derived from the same evolutionary source. Nothing in there suggests that animals or humans are automata or that they only respond directly to stimulus.
Umm do you actually know anyhting about this subject? Because no such reassessment took place. Skinner himself repeatedly emphasised that his theory was not a complete theory of animal behavior.
Kinda hard to re-evaluate a position that never existed. No?
[quote]
I never understood how Skinnerian Behaviorists could believe absolutely in evolution – that everything we are comes from ancestral species – and in their own theory that animals are unthinking, unfeeling, unaware machines. Where, then, did humans get awareness, thought, emotion?
[quote]
WTF? Did you even read your own link?
“Skinner saw that classical conditioning didn’t account for the behavior most of us are interested in, such as riding a bike or writing a book. His observations led him to propose a theory about how these and similar behaviors, called operants, come about.”
“Skinner was not a logical positivist and recognized the importance of thought as behavior. This position is made quite clear in About Behaviorism”
“Skinner wrote extensively on the limits and possibilities nature places on conditioning. Conditioning is implemented in the body as a physiological process and is subject to the current state, learning history, and history of the species. Skinner does not consider people a blank slate, or tabula rasa”
Not only did Skinner not believe that animals are unthinking, unfeeling, unaware machines, he wrote at length on where they and humans get awareness, thought, emotion.
Might I suggest you read your own links, at least, before expounding on a subject?
Piffle, Absolute piffle.
Nonsense.
Cite!