Behavioral science and cognitive science had a turf war over control of psychology departments in the mid-twentieth century. We like to recite the criticisms that became tropes in that war in order to pat ourselves on the back.
The link contends the terminology used to describe superstitious behaviour. It doesn't claim that an arbitrary schedule of reinforcement has no effect on the pigeon behaviour.
Cite please.
Skinner avoided appeals to internal states and demonstrated how schedules of reinforcement affected behaviour.
I liked Frailty. Without giving too much away, it demonstrates how any agent with god-like powers could make you believe whatever it wants you to believe. Therefore if you ever find yourself in a universe in which gods and powerful demons exist and have an interest in influencing your life, you could fall into a situation where you have no means of determining which gods or demons are best aligned with your long-term goals. Also, a sufficiently cogent propaganda campaign could have a good chance of convincing you to commit atrocities.
Sorry about the redundant post. I would delete it, but I feel that Jayson_Virissimo's comment is worth archiving.
You are right. However, I don't think the advice was meant to be used to evaluate weather or not a given essay is boring. I found it helpful because it provided a simple rule that I used to change my writing habits. I had a vague sense that some of my sentences were stilted, but I didn't know how to remedy that problem. Not everyone will get the same utility from creative restrictions, but I find them inspiring.
Could you give an example of "three reasons why [x] is good, and one broader conceptual reason why it might not be”? I’m not sure I follow.