Catania A C
Behav Anal. 1991 Spring;14(1):61-72. doi: 10.1007/BF03392553.
In what seems to be a response to a paper by Skinner (1987), Mahoney (1989) provides evidence of unfamiliarity with and intellectual intolerance toward radical behaviorism by presenting a critique of it that includes a variety of improper and counterfactual attributions. For example, he argues that radical behaviorism is Cartesian rather than Baconian when the historical record shows the opposite, that it is fundamentally associationist when in fact it is selectionist, and that its philosophy of science is essentially that of operationalism and logical positivism when instead it moved on to other criteria decades ago. The details of Mahoney's history are sometimes flawed and sometimes unsubstantiated, as when he provides a distorted account of the origins of the Association for Behavior Analysis or when he makes undocumented claims about the banning of books. On examination, many of his arguments are couched in stylistic terms that share their rhetorical features with racial, ethnic, and religious stereotyping.
在对斯金纳(1987年)一篇论文的回应中,马奥尼(1989年)通过对激进行为主义进行批判,提出了对其不熟悉和理智上不容忍的证据,该批判包含各种不当和与事实不符的归因。例如,他认为激进行为主义是笛卡尔式的而非培根式的,而历史记录显示的却是相反情况;他认为激进行为主义本质上是联想主义的,而实际上它是选择主义的;他还认为激进行为主义的科学哲学本质上是操作主义和逻辑实证主义的,而实际上几十年前它就已转向其他标准了。马奥尼所述历史细节有时有缺陷,有时无根据,比如他对行为分析协会的起源给出了歪曲的描述,或者在没有证据的情况下声称书籍被禁。经审视,他的许多论点都采用了一些文体措辞,这些措辞在修辞特征上与种族、民族和宗教刻板印象相同。