Chapter 16 Skinner: Behavioral Analysis 465of food increases the likelihood of eating, then they can deprive a person of food
in order to better predict and control subsequent eating behavior. Both deprivation
and eating are physical events that are clearly observable and therefore within the
province of science. Scientists who say that people eat because they are hungry
are assuming an unnecessary and unobservable mental condition between the phys-
ical fact of deprivation and the physical fact of eating. This assumption clouds the
issue and relegates much of psychology to that realm of philosophy known as
cosmology, or the concern with causation. To be scientific, Skinner (1953, 1987a)
insisted, psychology must avoid internal mental factors and confine itself to observ-
able physical events.
Although Skinner believed that internal states are outside the domain of sci-
ence, he did not deny their existence. Such conditions as hunger, emotions, values,
self-confidence, aggressive needs, religious beliefs, and spitefulness exist; but they
are not explanations for behavior. To use them as explanations not only is fruitless
but also limits the advancement of scientific behaviorism. Other sciences have made
greater advances because they have long since abandoned the practice of attributing
motives, needs, or willpower to the motion (behavior) of living organisms and inan-
imate objects. Skinner’s scientific behaviorism follows their lead (Skinner, 1945).
Philosophy of Science
Scientific behaviorism allows for an interpretation of behavior but not an explana-
tion of its causes. Interpretation permits a scientist to generalize from a simple
learning condition to a more complex one. For example, Skinner generalized from
animal studies to children and then to adults. Any science, including that of human
behavior, begins with the simple and eventually evolves generalized principles that
permit an interpretation of the more complex. Skinner (1978) used principles
derived from laboratory studies to interpret the behavior of human beings but
insisted that interpretation should not be confused with an explanation of why
people behave the way they do.
Characteristics of Science
According to Skinner (1953), science has three main characteristics: First, science
is cumulative; second, it is an attitude that values empirical observation; and third,
science is a search for order and lawful relationships.
Science, in contrast to art, philosophy, and literature, advances in a cumula-
tive manner. The amount and nature of scientific knowledge that today’s high
school students have of physics or chemistry is vastly more sophisticated than that
of even the most educated Greeks 2,500 years ago. The same cannot be said for
the humanities. The wisdom and genius of Plato, Michelangelo, and Shakespeare
are clearly not inferior to the wisdom and genius of any modern philosopher, art-
ist, or writer. However, cumulative knowledge is not to be confused with techno-
logical progress. Science is unique not because of technology but rather because
of its attitude.
The second and most critical characteristic of science is an attitude that places
value on empirical observation above all else. In Skinner’s (1953) words: “It is a