Biological constraints revisited: A critique

Abstract

Four types of supporting evidence for inferences of biological constraints on conditioning are evaluated: (1) unexpected failures to condition (discriminative leverpress avoidance); (2) rapid or one-trial learning (taste-aversion studies); (3) crossover learning effects (the Garcia-Koelling effect); and (4) unique predictions from biological constraint-based frameworks. According to a current logic model of scientific explanation and prediction, none of these types of evidence is adequately compelling for inferences of biological constraints. The core problem identified is that negative evidence not attributable to an identified causal factor in terms of EtC (experimental/control) design outcome has been used to both reject general-process learning laws and compel inferences of biological constraints. A design solution using a blocking EtC conditioning paradigm is presented.

Selective Associations: A Methodological Critique

“…Some of the purported evidence for selective associations has been discussed in recent reviews of the biological constraint issue (Damianopoulos, 1989;Domjan & Galef, 1983). The following review, in contrast, focuses exclusively and hopefully more exhaustively on the experimental evidence for selective associations per se.…”

Serotonin and conditioning: Focus on Pavlovian psychostimulant drug conditioning

“…The lack of relevance of these models to CNS processes has been detailed in the seminal papers by Damianopoulos [9,10].…”

Introduction: Biological Constraints on Learning

“…It is an empirical matter whether and how they actually obtain and relate. This issue arises from Damianopoulos' (1989) claim that inferences of biological constraints from evidence that has been obtained through certain experimental designs are not logically justified. The reason, he argues, is that these designs lack the proper controls, for which inferences from them do not satisfy a certain philosophical model of scientific explanation that he sees as being widely accepted, namely, the covering-law model (Hempel & Oppenheim, 1948).…”