Zilio Diego
Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, Federal University of Espírito Santo (UFES), Fernando Ferrari Ave, 514. Goiabeiras, Vitória, ES 29075-910 Brazil.
Behav Anal. 2016 Feb 11;39(2):197-218. doi: 10.1007/s40614-016-0053-x. eCollection 2016 Oct.
Skinner is commonly accused of being against neurophysiological explanations of behavior. However, in his writings, he did not criticize neuroscience itself as an important independent field from behavior analysis. The problem was in how some authors were using a pseudo-physiology in the explanation of behavior. Skinner was explicit in showing which authors and theories were using physiology incorrectly. Therefore, my goal is to present an analysis of the main targets of Skinner's critiques against neurophysiological explanations of behavior. This analysis will be divided as follows: (a) the targets of Skinner's critiques, (b) when the critiques were presented, and (c) the specific critiques that were made. The analysis was based upon 73 papers written by Skinner that were selected through keywords related to the issue. When placed in proper historical context, Skinner did not criticize neuroscience, but the misuse of pseudo-physiological theories in the explanation of behavior.
斯金纳常被指责反对对行为进行神经生理学解释。然而,在他的著作中,他并未将神经科学本身作为一个独立于行为分析的重要领域加以批判。问题在于一些作者如何在行为解释中运用伪生理学。斯金纳明确指出了哪些作者和理论在错误地运用生理学。因此,我的目标是对斯金纳针对行为的神经生理学解释所进行批判的主要对象展开分析。该分析将如下进行:(a)斯金纳批判的对象,(b)批判提出的时间,以及(c)所进行的具体批判。该分析基于通过与该问题相关的关键词筛选出的斯金纳撰写的73篇论文。置于恰当的历史背景下,斯金纳并未批判神经科学,而是批判在行为解释中对伪生理学理论的滥用。