54.

ccount

Now all of these are fine, and without any doubt there are TVs whose Tvism can be explained along any or several of the above lines of reasoning. However, it is inherant in any scientific method of reasoning that an hypothesis put forward to explain a phenomenon, must be able to for all the known facts relating to that phenomenon and if it cannot do so then the theory must be altered to include the new facts. oments thought reveals that all of the "explanations" given above can be lumped together under one generalization, and that is that childhood conditioning of one sort r another is responsible for an adult TV.

However, this conditioning theory fails to give an explanation of two important factors:

་

(1) Why are there large numbers of boys who have been exposed to one or more of the 7 conditioning factors who in adult life have no TV tendencies?

(2) Why are there a large number of TVs who have no history of any of the previously listed experiences in their childhood, but who are avid TVs in adult life Here then are two facts which do not fit the theory, so the theory needs revision. (The proponents of the conditioning: theory faced with these facts make what is to ma a scientif ically unsound attempt to shore up their pretty little theo. by claiming that childhood conditioning took place alright but the effects were "latent" till something triggered them off in adult life. This is equivalent to saying that every thing an adult is had its roots in childhood. This doesnt sound so bad because obviously we are all children before w become adults and so the "child is father to the man", But. put the same proposition in logic the other way and it be- comes ridiculous--an adult never develops anything complete. ly new in his adult life that was not already there in an incipient form in his childhood!

In my view the "conditioning" theory has very serious weaknesses and instead of trying to patch it up so it will hold up it seems to me that we would be better off looking! into the matter more closely to see if there is not some en tirely different hypothesis upon which to build our explan-