Bruce D
Department of Psychology, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Hist Psychol. 1998 Feb;1(1):69-84. doi: 10.1037/1093-4510.1.1.69.
N. Weidman (1994) claimed that "Karl Lashley and Clark Hull had a long and unresolved controversy about the structure and function of the brain, its relationship to the mind, and the use of machine metaphors to explain intelligence" (p. 162). The record contained in published articles and unpublished correspondence indicates otherwise. The clash was explicitly about continuity versus noncontinuity in discrimination learning, stimulus generalization, and the development of quantitative and mathematical psychological theory and its relation to neurophysiological data. Weidman also contended that the subtext of the debate was whether heredity or environment was more important in determining intelligence and behavior. This is doubtful. It is more probable that the debate stemmed from Lashley's career-long opposition to connectionism.
N. 魏德曼（1994）声称：“卡尔·拉什利和克拉克·赫尔就大脑的结构与功能、其与心智的关系以及用机器隐喻来解释智力等问题，展开了一场长期且未得到解决的争论”（第162页）。已发表文章和未发表信件中所记载的情况却并非如此。这场冲突明确围绕着辨别学习、刺激泛化、定量与数学心理学理论的发展及其与神经生理学数据的关系中的连续性与非连续性展开。魏德曼还认为，这场辩论的潜台词是在决定智力和行为方面，遗传还是环境更为重要。这一点值得怀疑。更有可能的是，这场辩论源于拉什利一生都对联结主义持反对态度。
