Advertisement

Behavior and Social Issues

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 81–91 | Cite as

How Should Behavior Analysis Interact Effectively With the Social Sciences?

  • Ingunn SandakerEmail author
Article

Abstract

I would like to discuss some perspectives on scientific approaches traditionally viewed as mutually incompatible or antagonistic. This might be illustrated by e.g. natural scientists’ claim of unambiguous communication as a result of objective description of experience vs. social constructivists claiming that there can be no such objective description of reality, since reality is constructed in a context and may vary relative to an individual’s perception, cultural, ethnic and political belonging. This is not a discussion limited to behavioural analysis vs. humanistic approaches or empiricism vs. hermeneutics, but a seemingly antagonistic and sometimes hostile dispute going on for more than half a century within the European and American intellectual communities. I want to frame this discussion with reference to the classical scientific ambition of “Unity of Knowledge” as expressed by the physicist Niels Bohr. This ambition is further developed and refined by contemporary biologist Edward O. Wilson when he describes the unity of knowledge as “Consilience.” I want to argue for a unifying behavioural approach with high scientific ambitions, but with the humble recognition that we have not yet, and may never reach a point we can call “The End of Science.”

Keywords

Complexity level of reduction unity of knowledge complementarity cultural selection metacontingences 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alderfer, C. P. (1995). Editor’s introduction: Applied behavioral science and the entities of organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31, 256–258.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886395313002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohr, N. (1954). Unity of knowledge. In N. Bohr (1990), The philosophical writings of Niels Bohr Vol. II 1953 – 1957 (pp. 67–82). Woodbridge: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar
  3. Catania, A. C., & Harnad, S. (1988). The selection of behaviour. The operant behaviorism of B. F. Skinner. Comments and consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
  5. Glenn, S. S. (1988). Contingencies and metacontingencies: Toward a synthesis of behavior analysis and cultural materialism. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glenn, S. S. (2003). Operant contingencies and the origin of cultures. In K.A. Lattal & P. Chase (Eds.), Behavior Theory and Philosophy (pp. 223–242). New York: Klewer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glenn, S. S. (2004). Individual behavior, culture and social change. The Behavior Analyst, 27, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glenn, S. S., & Malott, M.E. (2004). Complexity and selection: Implications for organizational change. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 89–106.  https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v13i2.378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gross, P. R., & Levitt, N. (1994). Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Herrnstein, R. J., & Prelec, D. (1992). A theory of addiction. In G. Loewenstein & J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 331–360). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  11. Loewenstein, G., & Elster, J. (Eds.) Choice over time. New York: Russel Sage FoundationGoogle Scholar
  12. Mayo, G. E. (1949/1975). The Social problems of an Industrial civilization. New Hampshire: Ayer.Google Scholar
  13. Rachlin, H. (2000) .The science of self-control. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Skinner, B. F. (1978). Reflections on behavior and society. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge: The Syndics of the University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  17. Tooby, J. ,& Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, J. Tooby, & L. Cosmides (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Watson, D. L., & Tharp, R. G. (2002). Self-directed behaviour (8th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  19. Watts, D. J. (2003). Unraveling the mysteries of the connected age. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 14, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. Wilson, E.O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ingunn Sandaker 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Akershus University CollegeNorway

Personalised recommendations