Humanism and Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism

  • J. E. R. Staddon

Abstract

“Science” and “humanities” are usually placed in opposition. The contributions of the humanities are in areas that are not usually thought of as scientific, such as morality and values, aesthetics, and an understanding of ultimate purposes. But, like his eminent younger colleague E. O. Wilson, B. F. Skinner recognized no dividing line. Science in general, and radical behaviorism in particular, provide all the knowledge needed, he argued, to guide society into a happy and, above all, long-term, future. His confidence is widely shared. Most middle-class parents, most psychotherapists and educators, the majority of political and social theorists, whether behavior analytically inclined or not, all now share Skinner’s confident belief that what they do is grounded in science.1 They acknowledge traditional practices, but doubt they have much to learn from them. They believe that all questions are at bottom scientific questions. Science, in principle, embraces all knowledge. This view, it is not unfair to say, has become the religion of the educated elite.

Keywords

Personal Responsibility Social Constructionism Radical Behaviorism Naturalistic Fallacy Evolutionary Epistemology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akin, E. (1999). Review of Belief and Resistance, by B. Herrnstein Smith Quarterly Review of Biology, 74, 61.Google Scholar
  2. Andresen, J. (1991). Skinner and Chomsky 30 years later or: The return of the repressed. The Behavior Analyst, 14, 49–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aunger, R. (Ed.) (2001). Darwinizing culture: The status of memetics as a science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bauerlein, M. (2001). Social constructionism: Philosophy for the academic workplace. Partisan Review, 2 May.http://www.partisanreview.org/archive/2001/2/bauerlein.htmlGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackmore, S. (1999). The meme machine. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1972). Psychology and ideology.Cognition, 1, 11–46.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, D. T. (1975). On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and between psychology and moral tradition. American Psychologist, 30, 1103–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dennett, D. C. (1996). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  11. Hayes, L. J. (1993). Reality and truth. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, H. W. Reese & T. R. Sarbin (Eds.) Varieties of scientific contextualism. Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hocutt, M. (2000). Grounded ethics: The empirical bases for normative judgments. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Levin, M. (1997). Why race matters: Race differences and what they mean. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  15. Monod, J. (1971). Chance and Necessity; an essay on the natural philosophy of modern biology. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  16. Popper, K. R. (1950). The open society and its enemies. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Rand, A. (1985). Philosophy: Who needs itNew York: New American Library. Google Scholar
  19. Shimp, C. P. (2001). Behavior as a social construction.Behavioural Processes, Behavioural Processes, 54, 11–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  21. Skinner, B. F. (1961). Freedom and the control of men. In Cumulative record, pp. 3–18. (Original work published 1955 )Google Scholar
  22. Skinner, B. F (1966). The phylogeny and ontogeny of behavior.Science, Science, 153, 1205–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Knopf. Google Scholar
  24. Skinner, B. F. (1976). About behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books. Google Scholar
  25. Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences.Science, Science, 213, 501–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith, B. H. (1997). Belief and resistance; Dynamics of contemporary intellectual controversy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sokal, A. D. (1996). Transgressing the boundaries: Towards a transformative hermeneu-tics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 46/47, 217–252 (spring/summer). See also http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html.Google Scholar
  28. Staddon, J. (1995). On responsibility and punishment. The Atlantic Monthly, Feb., 88–94.Google Scholar
  29. Staddon, J. E. R., & Simmelhag, V. (1971). The “superstition” experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior. Psychological Review, 78, 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Staddon, J. E. R. (2001). The new behaviorism Mind mechanism and society. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  31. Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience The unity of knowledge. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
  32. Wilson, J. Q. (2000). Democracy for all? Commentary, March (Internet edition).Google Scholar
  33. Zuriff, G. (1998). Against metaphysical social constructionism in psychology.Behavior & Philosophy, Behavior & Philosophy, 26, 5–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. E. R. Staddon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations