June 22, 2016

June 22, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my seventh response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). How are scientist supposed to examine and question their own superstitions? As long as they are only expected to read and write and thus can basically avoid talking about their “hypothesized entities involved in scientific explanations,” they will continue to maintain their superstitions just like everybody else.

The ignorance, neglect, denial and misrepresentation of behaviorism is a function of how behavioral scientists have talked. They don’t have more Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) than non-scientists. Their way of writing papers may be conform to scientific protocols, but their way of talking is unscientific and perpetuating Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).

Donohue et al. (1998) state that “All concepts have limitations, but

nonetheless concepts are necessary in science.” However, they don’t address that besides reading and writing, we must talk about science and be able and attracted to listen to someone who is talking about it.

These authors are imprisoned by written words. They have written, but not talked about the preconceived assumptions. The sentence “Science will always contain some assumptions, because all things cannot be simultaneously questioned” didn’t come out of nowhere. It signifies a way of talking in which at best only a few questions could be asked.

In NVB, a listener who becomes the speaker is only allowed to ask the speaker a limited amount of questions. Most people have had limited exposure to and involvement in SVB, in which “all things” CAN  “be simultaneously questioned.” Such questioning is often associated with religious experiences. As NVB was incapable of accommodating our relentless questioning, we have created and maintained scientific and religious assumptions. Causation of behavior by an inner agent is the most detrimental assumption and can only be eradicated by SVB.