What's Right in Behavior Analysis?

Reviewing papers in the professional literature

In 2002, Murray Sidman expressed his concern:

" ... our students are losing contact with the basic behavioral science in which their applications are rooted and from which future applications are to be derived.  I think it has been just as damaging internally that we have lost standing outside, in the general world of science , among biologists of all kinds, neural scientists, geneticists, and so on. Their respect, if we could regain it, would provide a solid starting point for support by society in general. "

In 1996, Saul Axelrod stressed loss of respect:

   "The matter is not simply one of benign neglect. Some, such as myself, continue to endure snide comments of long-time colleagues when the topic of behavior analysis is raised.  After many years at one university, I am still struggling to have one course in behavior analysis become a part of the curriculum for future regular-education teachers. Outsiders to our field respond, unflatteringly, to a behavioral approach with a comment such as, 'Oh, doesn't that have something to do with Pavlov's dog?'  Seldom does one see a member of the editorial boards of the most respected behavioral journals employed in psychology departments of North America's most prestigious universities. "  

I suggest, behaviorists can regain appreciation from society in general and respectful attention
from biologists of all kinds, on matters concerning explanation, observation and quantification.

For example, though these are not Pavlov's words, they might teach students that Pavlov was the first to show why looking at things and listening to sounds may remind human beings of a personal experience.
Pavlov's measured canine salivation; yet it was the cerebral cortex and Descartes' conceptualisation of the nervous reflex that were his starting points.
As a physiologist with a Nobel Prize for revealing the functions of the digestive system, Pavlov
embarked on an environmental analysis to find out what activates salivary glands, via the brain;
he went beyond vivisection, "the study of isolated organs and tissues".

Today, brain scientists and the general public could profit from the scope of Pavlov's research.
A list of the stimuli that made dogs remember what they were about to receive may suffice for
a valid cause-and-effect explanation.
For instance, rarely does Pavlov talk about a 'visual stimulus' , when he tabulates:
/a luminous square/; /a lamp flash/; / rotating object/; / circle of white paper /; /a circle vs ellipse/;
/black vs white screen/; /the letter T vs 15 diverse figures/; and even /meat powder at a distance/;
nor are 'auditory stimuli ' listed as such; only the sound of: /hissing/ ; /bubbling/ ; /crackling / ;
/a semitone/ ; /organ pipe/ ; /a metronome/ ; / whistle on the right/ ; /whistle on the left/ ; /a trumpet/;
 /a buzzer/; /a hooter/; /a bell/; and more. 

Had the dogs been Pavlov's first interest, he might have said:
" Eureka! I have news for psychologists: this explains the psychic secretion!  Dogs have vision
and hearing ... and audio-visual stimuli affect the gland before the food even enters the mouth!
We have here a conditioned reflex: the response is glandular, the stimulus is definitely external:
environmental sources of a physiological response."
Pavlov wanted to know how the brain controls reflex networks in the body;  not how the brain
is affected by what animals are able to see and hear.
In his experiments, he placed healthy and conscious dogs under a number of "rigidly defined"
conditions, insisting that only by this method is it possible to study the reflexes independently.

Observation has to do with Pavlov's decision 'no more vivisection' and this topic resolves
argument over  'introspection'; literally looking into organisms' body or head one can see inner
parts only with particular tools and may scan internal functions.
But thoughts, feelings, memories etc., are never seen via introspection simply because organs don't feel, think, recall,etc.: only individuals see and hear one another do so.
Such eye-openers may be enough to make any humanitarian drool with pleasure!

As for quantification: subjects stand quietly as Pavlov measured accumulated saliva in his registering apparatus, And those are his words, not an interpretation.
So Pavlov's reflex conditioning room and Skinner's operant chamber are similar: so far the
animals are stationary in either setting; and both men describe their experimental setup in detail.
Skinner's background in biology and behavioristic philosophy brought him to what must be
one of the most amazing revelations in the history of science:
the behavior of individuals is quantified by the accumulation of body part movements.
Pavlov collected saliva produced by a gland, whereas Skinner registered the rate of visible
parts, eg., paws, beaks. Yet stationary subjects are present in both research settings ... and
they look and feel and listen - otherwise no saliva or behavior to speak of, let alone graphic
records.   Imagine what all this could mean for human beings!

Your fingers press keys on your computer, whilst you, the individual, sit on your chair ... for
hours ... sending your thoughts to those who relayed theirs to you ... and, also:  speak of you.
Talk about relevance. 

Silence Is Golden where you don't wish to hurt someone.
In scientific circles, researchers share their knowledge for the benefit of humans and animals,
worldwide.  Behaviorists could even concur with Descartes' "I think, therefore I am. "
They know people exist, whether they keep their thoughts to themselves or advertise them!
Sound is invisible - not thoughts nor individuals whose memories can be happy as well.  Just so.
From his experiments, Pavlov inferred applications to humans; and his theories might fascinate
linguists and cognitivists, hypnotists and neurologists, physicists and philosophers who ponder
about Mind over Matter.