616
ROBERT CLAIBORNE
behavior modification. Now there is very little doubt-in my mind, at least
-that behavior modification works, on some patients, some of the time. But
its empirical success in no sense validates Behaviorism.
If
Skinner knew any–
thing about the history of technology, he would be aware that the efficacy of
any technology says nothing about the validity of its conceptual rationale.
Aspirin has been a useful drug for nearly a century, yet only in the past few
years have physiologists discovered why it works-and dozens of comparable
examples could be cited from the history of pharmacology. To take a more
homely case, man has demonstrably been employing the technology of fire
for more than half a million years. His
explanations
of fire, however, remained
erroneous if not outright fantastic until less than two centuries ago.
As a reply to Behaviorism's critics, in short,
About Behaviorism
is laughable.
Most of the time, indeed, the reply is as oblique as possible; Skinner almost
never names his critics or quotes them directly, leading to the suspicion that
many of them are in fact straw men, whose demolition will hopefully obscure
the fact that really substantial criticisms are merely obfuscated, when they are
not simply ignored. The work is precisely what Professor Joseph Weitzen–
baum of MIT called it in the
New York Times:
an "awful book," replete with
"utterly vacuous theories." Which raises the question of why the book's
preparation-like that of its awful predecessor,
Beyond Freedom and Dignity–
was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health.
One wonders, to begin with, whether, having subsidized Skinner's reply
to
his critics, NIMH will give the latter equal time. But quite apart from this, is
the support of philosophical polemics-by Skinner or anyone else-a proper
use of public funds? Some academic friends of mine say that it is, but I am not
convinced.
If
someone wants to do research, or propose future research, then
by all means let NIMH subsidize him (or her)-always assuming, of course,
that the person in question lacks adequate personal or institutional funds to
do the job. But if someone feels inclined to philosophize about human
nature-which is what Skinner concedes he is doing-my feeling, as a tax–
payer, is that he should do it on his own time, not mine.
But quite apart from the propriety of subsidizing works of this
character-why Skinner? The man holds an endowed professorship at Har–
vard, whose not inconsiderable salary is supplemented by royalties and lec–
ture fees; it seems reasonable to think that he could and would have written
both books without a nickel of public money. Meanwhile-as many medical
acquaintances of mine are bitterly complaining-a great deal of potentially
valuable research is having to be discontinued because money isn't available.
But perhaps the most fundamental question raised by Skinner's NIMH
subsidy is that of quality control.
About Behaviorism,
like its predecessor, is
junk-not because of the author's opinions; but because of the shoddy, unsci-
