Your list seems to me to affirm my point. None of the things you mention strike me as boring and obvious, and I have a lot of respect for 1890. Lectures in scientific piety, not so much.
But as long as we're butting heads about this, perhaps you can clear up something I was wondering. The article says:
[Pavlov] showed that a physical connection can be created between a stimulus (the bell sound) and the following behavior (the dog's salivation) with no cognitive interaction.
My question: is that last bit - "with no cognitive interaction" - the received interpretation of Pavlov's result, or was it just added by the author?
Comments
Your list seems to me to affirm my point. None of the things you mention strike me as boring and obvious, and I have a lot of respect for 1890. Lectures in scientific piety, not so much.
But as long as we're butting heads about this, perhaps you can clear up something I was wondering. The article says:
[Pavlov] showed that a physical connection can be created between a stimulus (the bell sound) and the following behavior (the dog's salivation) with no cognitive interaction.
My question: is that last bit - "with no cognitive interaction" - the received interpretation of Pavlov's result, or was it just added by the author?