Why is methodological behaviorism limited in its scientific approach?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mkir
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
1 reply · 5K views
mkir
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm stuck on this problem and I was wondering if you guys can give me any insights about it using methodological behaviorism to explain it.

Your knee will jerk if something were to hit it. Is this because of your belief/desires? If it isn't, would going out with your friends to watch a film be any different?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The major problem with behaviourism is the fallacious belief that it cannot be scientific to construct models that include elements one cannot directly observe.

Physics would have stagnated at Renaissance level if it were not for its willingness to construct such models.


The point of empirical science is NOT that we are merely to collect data and set them in some sort of "system".

Rather, we are to CONSTRUCT models that have predictable and detectable CONSEQUENCES, and then go into the lab trying to see whether those consequences occur or not.

By limiting itself to collecting and systematizing data, behaviourism has reduced itself to produce uninteresting curve-fitting results.