Talk:Radical behaviorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 changes 2 NPOV dispute 3 Review of Verbal Behavior 4 Another gem 5 NPOV 6 Language 7 It is still quite biased 8 I am taking this article over 9 Daniel Dennet reference 10 Skinner and his spawn get a pass 11 Theory and practice

[edit] changes

the black box comments are confusing. I added a strong negation to the tabula rasa stuff. --Florkle 10:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Skinners work is not an extension of Pavlov or Watson except in being whole organism (Pavlov) and behavior based (Watson). It doesn't extend the reflex at all so it practically rejects the entirety of reflex psychology ("I am not an S-R psychologist" -B.F.Skinner). Read About Behaviorism.

Moreover, SKinner's work didn't derive from Thorndike. It's /similar/ but not derivative. It's NOT the law of Effect. Cite your source if you think it is. I'll site a source that says it aint.

--Florkle 10:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the assertions about controversial. Yes, it's true, but simply saying it is pointless. Why is it true? "X is controversial, but Y says it's not" is just pointless.

I slapped in two reasons its controversial to keep from killing the whole paragraph.

--Florkle 09:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

I slapped the POV-check sticker on this because the entire article seems extremely biased against anyone who disagrees with radical behaviorism. "The strategy of the cognitive (or perhaps 'anti-behaviorist'?) schools is to concede as little as possible where Skinner is concerned and to extend every opposing theory of any area that has an opposing theory to Skinner [...] and to knit together a whole mismash of inconsistent theories and approachs all welded together by their common slogan of 'Mind!' and their hostility to Radical Behaviorism's atheoretical approach"? I think this article could use a lot of rewriting. —TheNewAuk 22:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I most certainly agree that the article is extremely biased and so needs to be rewritten--even extensively. It is nevertheless unfortunate, considering that virtually everything in it is correct as it stands--and not despite the bias--but rather on account of it. --Uroshnor 08:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe Wikipedia is a place for scientific editorial. The unbridled attacks on a whole school of scientific theory is not at all warranted, not matter-of-fact, and most certainly not neutral. The data and information is correct, but a great deal of the subjective slant, particularly that against cognitive science, is quite untrue, biased nonsense. The whole article is chock full of opinion presupposing the legitimacy of Skinner's theories.

Not scientific at all, and certainly not neutral.

Since there's concensus here, I'm changing POV check to NPOV.--Vaergoth 29 June 2005 20:25 (UTC)

In fact, after reading again, I really think this is a good candidate for a total rewrite. Many of the sections start out denouncing critics, and the tone of the entire thing is extremely defensive. Unless there are any major objections to this (and if there are, please list them here), I'm going to go ahead and place {cleanup-rewrite}.--Vaergoth 29 June 2005 20:31 (UTC)

Actually reading through this article i think it needs more than a rewrite. With the exception of a few sentences at the beginning it needs scrapped and rewritten. I think the questions it should answer are:

When was methodological behaviourism originated and by whom?

Who were the methodological behaviourists (apart from Skinner)?

What was the history of the movement? How does it related to the 'other' behaviorisms?

How was it criticised (by cognitivists and others), and how did Skinner (et al) react to these criticisms?

What is the state of methodological behaviourism now?

BScotland

I'm considering giving it a shot. There are some problems though.

It is difficult to write a non-controversial article about radical behaviorism, inasmuch as it is in fact a contorversial position and it is misrepresented in all major textbooks. Most textbook articles about radical behaviorism are, in fact, are about as biased against Radical Behaviorism as the present articles is biased against Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science being today's standard paradigm, this is difficult to see. An article about radical behaviorism has to address the controversy. However, there are or should be alternatives to the approach the author of the present article takes.

roffe 08:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Radical and methodological behaviorism are two distinct philosophies.Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review of Verbal Behavior

In "Review of Verbal Behavior" by Noam Chomsky, Chomsky attacks the triumvirate of operant theory - stimulus, response, reinforcement - as being applicable only to the laboratory and not "real life". In "real life" it becomes definitionally meaningless he says. He accuses Skinner of dressing up his theory with the appearance of science using the technically precise language of the laboratory to give his non-technical views on language prestige. This rather causes one to wonder how B.F.Skinner who innovated the very precise and technical language described in The Behavior of Organisms in 1938 (and sited by Chomsky) could then apparently not notice, or assume others would not notice, he was abusing the very clear technical language he himself championed not only in 1938 but throughout his life? But this is just one of many curious statements made by Chomsky in his critique not only of Radical Behaviorism, but of Empiricism itself, that allow him to include references to drive theory that Skinner rejected (and Chomsky concedes as much) but then when Chomsky demolishes drive theory we are to conclude that this also demolishes Skinner's position on Verbal Behavior. It is telling, and perhaps necessary, to take such a high-level approach in attacking Skinner's basic work or its inability to be generalized in undermining Skinner's theory of Verbal Behavior. Because if you take the basic laboratory work and analysis as proven, and even so-called cognitive scientists will do this, it becomes very hard to challenge Skinner's theory of Verbal Behavior since they so clearly parallel his basic laboratory work.

I thought the above was kinda fun, and worthy of the talk page if nothing else. Sam Spade 06:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another gem

Insofar as cognitive "science" is simply the Frankenstein like rebirth of mentalistic humunculus-laden theories of inner determination they represent little more than the perpetuation of the very theories that Watson and Skinner attempted to displace (obviously with only little success).

Since cognitive "science" is little more than pre-Behaviorist mentalism dressed up in the latest fad computer-metaphor or neurobiological or genetic patois it can be little said to be Modern unless Behaviorism would then be "post Modern" to its Modernity. The strategy of the cognitive (or perhaps "anti-behaviorist"?) schools is to concede as little as possible where Skinner is concerned and to extend every opposing theory of any area that has an opposing theory to Skinner, to embrace many of the opposing Behaviorist theorists who didn't eschew mental constructs and to knit together a whole mismash of inconsistent theories and approaches all welded together by their common slogan of "Mind!" and their hostility to Radical Behaviorism's atheoretical approach.

Ahahaha... oh yeah, thats rich. Sam Spade 06:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

What do you guys think of removing the dispute header now? Sam Spade 06:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. Sam Spade 01:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Language

Niether this article nor B. F. Skinner address his astonishing(ly poor) attempt to address language. It's been a long time since I was up to speed in that area, but it seems to me to be a glaring omission. Does this, perhaps, suggest that this article is still PoV? -- Mwanner | Talk 17:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It is still quite biased

I don't think this article is an objective article. In the philosophy community, radical behaviorism is widely discredited.

I'm not so sure. Have you ever read Wittgenstein, Philisophical Investigations? He actually seems to support radical behaviorism. Silly rabbit 22:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

See the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy entry at least, for god's sake. This guy must be a complete behaviorist crank, or he wouldn't be talking about that retarded novel of Skinner with respect. He must be Skinner's grandson who was probably brainwashed into accepting this naive philosophy as worthwhile.

References, please? Also, I don't appreciate the fact that you call someone a crank because they are writing about what they are supposed to. The article is radical behaviorism, not radical behaviorism is wrong. If you want to, you are more than welcome to add a discussion of the shortcomings and discreditations of radical behaviorism once the basic definition and core philosophy (and utilitarian scientific basis) have been ferreted out. But you really ought to provide some references if you are to make yourself credible.

Anyway, even if you manage to completely discredit behaviorism, please check out the history of science. I'm sure you will have a field day on that page.

Thanks, Silly rabbit 22:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I am taking this article over

I am trying to have someone who is one of the last living co-authors of the theory of radical behaviorism to assist in the writing of this article. You may find that I am the one submitting his results on his behalf, once I have wikified them. Please direct your wrath at me, and not him. Whether you agree or disagree with radical behaviorism on its philosophical merits is about as relevant to the subject of an encylopedia article as whether you agree or disagree with the idea of biblical creation ex nihilo. The article still ought to exist and be unbiased as far as the philosophical principal goes. You are welcome to submit refutations later on in the article, but the definition of the radical behaviorism position is about as uncontroversial as the defintion of rabbit. I have attached an under construction tag to discourage any more biased edits, and to indicate that I intend to bring an expert to this article. Please respect my tag for the time being.

Thanks, Silly rabbit 22:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I made a few NPOV related edits to the page. After that, I hear that the article looks quite good overall. I am removing the "under construction" tag. But this is not a carte blanche for would-be vandals. Stay away unless you know what you are doing. To the Wikipedia users and especially the admins: thank you for your cooperation and assistance. Silly rabbit 08:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Dennet reference

The discussion section seems to be a bit stagnant here, but I'm going to put this here anyway before I try to change anything. In one paragraph it states that Radical Behaviorism has been dismissed as too simplistic and confused for Pavlov's S-R behaviorism. While this is true, the article goes on to cite Daniel Dennet as an example of this. Lucky for me, I have his book (though haven't gotten around to reading it) and was able to check the reference. Although Dennet is dismissive of Radical Behaviorism as being too "simplistic," he does not misunderstand it in the way the article implies.

The full Dennet quote states: "...B. F. Skinner's Behaviorism, in which stimulus-response pairings were the candidates for selection, and 'reinforcing' stimuli were the mechanisms of selection." (page 183).

Dennet's quote is factually accurate. He accurately describes the behavioral model of stimulus-response relationships being selected for by their consequential stimuli. The paragraph that cites this quote as a "misunderstanding" needs to be changed, possibly with a different example in its place. Lunar Spectrum | Talk 02:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

to use the term 'stimulus-response pairing' is to confuse S-R psychology with Behaviorism which doesn't use any associatism to explain operant behavior. It is confusing at best. --florkle 06:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. While I agree with you that calling them "S-R pairings" instead of something like "S->R relationships" is misleading terminology, the full Dennet quote shows that he does in fact understand the three-term contingency to be different from S-R psychology. The current article mistakenly cites this as Dennet misunderstanding Skinner, which is what I originally said needed to be fixed. I made the original post about this months ago and have since forgotten to follow up on it, so I might as well just remove the problematic statement right now. Lunar Spectrum | Talk 06:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skinner and his spawn get a pass

I'm studying Applied Behavioral Analysis background and techniques in the area of treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorders. In so doing, I've found many real-world implications (harmful, in my view) of the dogmas of behaviorism. I've read reams of loose, sloopy, vague pronouncements from key drivers of behaviorism, dressed in highly technical jargon that portend to justify enormously significant assuptions. However, to the extent that Skinner's views remain deeply influential, the assumptions should be challenged.

The famous Chomsky polemics ( http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1967----.htm ), ( http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19711230.htm )were never refuted by Skinner himself, nor in any complete way since, that I've found. Yet Chomsky's challenges are very clearly defined.

Chomsky made claims that were refuted decades before he wrote them, often about schools of behaviorism that Skinner himself had rejected. SKinner rejected Chomksy /categorically/ not specifically. See "Are Theories of Learning Necessary?" for a categorical rejection of Chomsky, et al. This is a radically inductive position that Chomsky could not grasp (and he even admits as much repeatedly if you read his critiques "it makes no sense...").

--florkle 06:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This entry is a good overview of the claims made in radical behaviorism. However, could it not be that this paragraph needs to be re-examined?

"Many textbooks, in emphasizing that Skinner held behavior to be the proper subject matter of Psychology, fail to clarify Skinner's position and implicitly or even explicitly posit that Skinner ruled out the study of private events as unscientific."

It seems to me that, any particular statemtents to the contrary notwithstanding, this is actually a fair and accurate representation of Skinner's behaviorism.

Skinner explicity /accepted/ private events in his radical behaviorism rejecting the methodological behaviorism prevalant in his time (viz Pavlov/Watson). See About Behaviorism (1974) for a popular treatment on this subject, but thinking and other private events are presented in Science and Human Behavior (1953) for example and Verbal Behavior (1957).... --florkle 06:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Skinner seems to have a teflon coating somehow. He made radical, sweeping statements about behavior that never quite get put on the historical shelf along with other primitive, mid-twentieth century nascent ideas of psychology. It seems to me that his ideas are rarely fully categorised as spectulative and/or innacurate because at some points, Skinner said, "sure, there's physiology".

Nope. Skinner rejected physiologizing as early as 1938 in his Behavior of Organisms (see last chapter) which broke quite distinctly with the physiologizing of Pavlov(!) one of the big dogs of Behaviorism. --florkle 06:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then, there's either an enormous contradiction, or there's an enormously important truth. Which is it? Should this entry not endeavor to state more clearly and utterly where Radical behaviourism is a quaint, primitive speculation? Then the more modern forms of behaviorism, which it seems to me, are based on principles of radical behaviorism more than they admit, would then perhaps not be so readily treated with kid gloves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.238.73 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Theory and practice

Hey, I asked this question over at Talk:Experimental analysis of behavior, but it belongs here too. There's a section in that article called An anti-theoretical analysis?, which talks about whether or not Skinner was anti-theoretical. It seems to me that this section belongs in this article, since this article is about Skinner's theoretical framework. And, as the first line of the Radical behaviorism article says: "Radical behaviorism is a philosophy developed by B. F. Skinner that underlies the experimental analysis of behavior approach to psychology." In other words, experimental analysis of behavior is the methodology, Radical behaviorism is the underlying theoretical framework. Thoughts? --Gpollock 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

there are, perhaps, two underlying theoretical frameworks - one for EAB and one - a more philosophical one - is Radical Behaviorism. However, even there its not so clear cut. The proposition that behavior is lawful is central to RB and is, according to Skinner's About behaviorism uprovable. However, this unprovable assumption is the basis for EAB which necessitates that the behavior it studies... be lawful! The nature of what constitutes /theory/ is a matter of data driven inductive theory (nicely illustrated in Mecca Chiesa's book) versus those of the hypothetico-deductive schools Skinner opposed (see his "Are Theories of Learning Necessary?"). EAB may grapple with this issue by simply making it implicit and not discussing it, while a journal like Behaviorism may make it overt.

I don't think there is an easy answer here. fwiw.--florkle 23:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)