Comparison

I keep trying to defend radical behaviorism but I can't say I make waves. It is hard to attract
the attention of scientists for more than a minute and persuade them to enlarge their animal-conditioning laboratory. Nobody's interested enough to ask: Why? What for?

Murray Sidman's Tactics of Scientific Research: Evaluating Experimental Data in
Psychology (1960) introduced issues regarding data reliability and generality, and concludes:
It is never easy to determine whether contemporary enthusiasm (or apathy) represents a sound judgment.
That verdict will develop concurrently with the particular science.

Well, expanding behavior science will reduce apathy and engender trustworthy data with global
consensus and lead to general appreciations of people as fallible, flesh-and-blood human beings.
How do I know?
My answers are posted in this blog, and interested readers may judge and decide for themselves
whether - or not - they lead towards conceptual revision.

Meanwhile, I cite Murray Sidman as the spokesman for experimental behavior analysis.
The first question (in Chapter 1) is Why Perform Experiments? 
   In psychology, the hypothesis-testing school of experimentation is undoubtedly dominant today.
Many of those who organize their research in this manner have made significant contributions.
But I caution the student not to fall into the error of  insisting that all experimentation must derive
from the testing of hypotheses. Psychologists must recognize, as do other scientists, that advances in
knowledge come from many unexpected quarters.
I was uncomfortable with hypothetical cumulative records until Murray Sidman assured me,
he did not mind. Ever since then, I count my designs as coming from "unexpected quarters".

Comparing methodologies Dr. Sidman continues to clarify: The history of science reveals many discoveries that resulted from the inquiry, 'I wonder what will happen if...' (p.8)
There are two broad and diametrically opposed schools of thought concerning the most effective methods for integrating diverse data. The difference between the two schools lies, not in the presence or absence of theory, but in the way theory is brought into the picture. In one case, the theories are formulated first and then tested -- by -- experiment. The other method is to experiment first and let the theories emerge -- from the data. (p.14)
   
"Theory first vs theory later ", sounds a good way to categorize different schools of thought. Yet,
I find Sidman's everyday terms more helpful for comprehending the battle of words - which still
rages. A lot of people can connect guessing with having a theory, know what curiosity is and
are familiar with let's find out what happens if...

Wondering what records might show if a rat had food and shock at one lever, the first thing
that happened to me was I knew "my animal" would probably run away and not come back.
So I left the food where it was and moved the shock to another lever. But there again, I thought
the rat would press once - no more.   And thus, only the food curve would be accumulative.
So the next thing I did was imagine a second food lever and then there could be two curves:
if food stopped at the one, the rat would stop too, and try at the other.
If food stopped at the one, the rat would stop too, and move to another.
I thought this a few times until the penny dropped: I must not use shock.

The next thing that happened was I asked myself what would happen if behaviorists knew
that rats didn't need shock to stop them pressing the lever.  The investigators could open
the food - or the water - in another location. 
So then I recalled Sidman's words:  Great experiments have been performed without the experimenter
having the slightest inkling as to the probable results ..... When an investigator performs an experiment
to test no hypothesis, his life is full of surprises . (p.8)

And - since I had never performed a proper experiment - I felt trapped. I can never convince
Sidman, and Skinner, and Ferster and many more opposers of "theory before data" to accept
my suggestion. Perhaps the best I can do now is, remind behavior analysts of how we define
social interactions and find outside cause for diametrically opposed epithets:
patriot or traitor, idealist or terrorist, liberal or radical, such unilateral epithets can depend
on geography, place of birth, socio-economic status, school and experience.

So long as impartial objective measures of either border-position are neglected, pushed out of
sight, or simply not mentioned, identical behaviors are evalued one-sidedly.

Comparing adjectives, applied by parents and teachers to their oppositional child - before and
after successful modification - can be a beautiful and an enlightening experience for all involved.
In my view, reflex and operant conditioning is nothing less than miraculous.

Were it not for misplaced prestige, behavior scientists would have answered What is behavior?
to everyone's satisfaction 30 years ago.
Behavior is manifestly, not a thing; it is what people do as they go here, there, and everywhere.
Or, when they sit on a chair pushing keys to write on their computer, like individual organisms
in the Skinnerian experimental settings.
For analysing socialisation however, researchers need larger laboratories to make room for all
the animals, as well as all the operanda. I don't know how many, but subjects must be able to
go and choose locations according to their needs and their inclinations. In this way, the data will
exemplify communication, and highlight healthy and reciprocal contingencies of reinforcement.
This is also a question about normalcy.

Three inspiring quotes:

She has lost the art of conversation, but not, unfortunately, the power of speech.
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) Irish writer

The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it.
Edward G. Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873) British politician, poet and critic.

The great gift of conversation lies less in displaying it ourselves but in drawing it out of others. He who
leaves your company pleased with himself and his own cleverness is perfectly pleased with you.
Jean de la Bruyere (1645- 1696) French essayist and moralist
In 2012 we speak more of intelligence than cleverness, or maybe, the words wisdom 
or kindness, sound better today.

In any case: conditions may inhibit or energize persons, organs and hormones, and so on,
way down to biochemical levels of analysis:  viruses, bacteria, single-celled organisms.
Here we vindicate the behavioristic philosophy of science as thinking outside the box,
on a grand Darwinian evolutionary scale:
from the seas, to the continents and trees ... light and shadow, sound and silence ... up
into the heavens and back to earth again.

5 June, 2012
What a relief!
Yesterday, after hearing a biophysicist's questions: How does a cell in our body know how to fight
viruses, bacteria and chemical toxins?  What does it see?  What does it remember?  I asked:
How do the processes you described fit Darwin's theory of evolution? Are viruses primitive forms
of life? Are there viruses and bacteria that are necessary for the lives of other organisms?
Without hesitation, the scientist said Yes.
I forgave the personification of the cells!