What Is Lost In The Objective Scientific Approach To Human Behavior?
By Jerry Mertens, St. Cloud State University


Loss Of Extra Baggage Is No Loss At All:

When a person gives up any kind of inferential explanatory fictional system used to state a supposed cause of human behavior, you lose the supposed inner mentalistic life AS A SUPPOSED CAUSE OF A BEHAVIOR. One need not question that people "say" things to themselves. The issue is, if talking to
themselves (an inferred mental life) is the cause of the overt behavior. For
example, when we assert that a human acts in a given way because he/she
"expects" to receive a favorable consequence, then what began as a task of
accounting for learned behavior becomes the task of accounting for "expectancy." This added extra step is of no real use to the person looking to find causes of behavior. (This concept is elaborated on in the Theory Section of the Science of Behavior [SB] materials).

Historical Loss:

Historically there are always people who appear to find something significant lost in every scientific advancement that has taken place. Below is just a quick look at a few general examples found in history:

1. Some thought that the invention of the printing press was going to lead to a
loss of humans' need for memory.

2. Luther's attempt to clean up Catholicism in the Reformation, to some, caused a loss of richness of the religion, less ritual around Mary, etc.

3. The loss of just the Latin Mass in Catholicism meant, to some, there was no Mass at all. The change to a different language was perceived to destroy the religion. There were movements and comments made like, "Get a true Catholic in the Vatican as Pope."

4. To some in the Galileo era, we lost a lot when Galileo "shoved" people out of the center of the universe.

5. The following is a semi-satirical effort to express this loss when certain
changes took place in Psychology:

              First - humans lost their soul
              Then - humans lost their heart
              Then - humans lost their mind (with J.B. Watson)

In the following material some further considerations on what is supposedly lost in the scientific approach will be discussed. The order of material given will be:

(1) to list the major topic heading about what is supposedly "lost,"

(2) followed (in parentheses) by a quote indicative of what one hears as an objective counter to the scientific approach, and then

(3) rebuttal point(s) will be made to this objection.

1. SOMETHING IS LEFT OUT: ("Things are lost or left out of the scientific
approach.") The question is: What is left out, and is it worthwhile to leave out? Mentalistic fictional inferences are left out because they are seen as worthless and detrimental by the objective scientific approach. The scientific approach is a humble approach which encourages examination of only those things which are observable. Remember an "empty organism" (studying only what can be objectively evaluated) is better than an organism filled with garbage (fictional inferences). In other words, it is better to admit the lack of an answer than to fill the organism with a lot of fictional or garbage-like answers. The history of science argues against coming up with answers just to get one off the hook. Filling psychology full of non-factual explanations for behavior delays progress. The alternative way is to come to grips with problems. The cumulative progress of history tells of the uselessness of making up inferences to avoid problems. It is better to deal directly with only what is known and scientifically verifiable instead of using mentalistic speculation in an attempt to explain behavior.


One of the issues in the area of what is lost is represented by the statement: "The scientific approach is by necessity a superficial approach and cannot deal with the depth of the mind or personality." This may be rebutted by such points as: How deep is the mind? This metaphor of the mind, once explained, removes the question. One proclaiming he or she has a "deep" approach does not verify that it will be legitimate. Finding objective answers is hard enough ("deep enough,” if you prefer to say it that way).

2. REJECTS NICE THINGS ABOUT LIFE: ("The scientific approach doesn't
have room for the nice things in life.") The scientific approach is objective in
nature (it only works with what is observable) whereas the inferential approach has a good deal of fiction associated with it. Prediction and speculation are only the first steps in experimentation. At times, the inferential approach makes them the final steps. In the scientific framework there is room for the "nice" things in life. The application of scientific principles results in a more effective approach. A scientific approach can be viewed as "hard-headed and soft-hearted," in that it takes a serious objective look at behavior while it allows room for "nice" things, and it is a movement away from "soft-headed and hard-hearted." The scientific approach looks at common concepts: "love," "passion," "happiness etc.," in an objective manner. This approach does not change the world; the world remains exactly the same. What the scientific approach does is attempt to explain the psychological world in a way not often used (an objective manner).


It is not clear what the real nature of some supposed nice things are. Certainly the scientific approach has contended that just because something
sounds good doesn't mean it is useful. It would be nice if we had a thermometer of the mind, but we don't. However, we do have the objective scientific approach.

3. LACK OF WARMTH: ("The scientific approach is cold, it lacks kindness. It
lacks the warmth needed to work with and understand human problems”). All
the warmth and compassion in the world are not enough by themselves. Hard
nosed competency is needed if one is to be humane. The scientific approach
explains behavior in such a manner that it can be effectively used for the benefit of humankind. If you mistreat in the name of goodness, it still hurts. Science, objectivity, and compassion (concern) can go hand in hand and are not at the opposite ends of the "warmth" dimension.

4. TOO SIMPLE: ("It is oversimplified and naïve. It’s facts are either trivial
or already well known”). This position contends, apparently, that the principle
would be of more value if it was more complex. It does not seem important to
these critics, that many of these complex, inferential, supposed explanations are founded in terms which do not allow specifying of behavioral problems. Human behavior is not as complex and difficult to explain as it may often seem. "Over simplified" appears a more appropriate term for the fictional mentalistic explanation invented on the spot.

5. LEADS TO LOSS OF HEROES: ("The scientific objective approach
doesn't provide a need for heroes.") Let us say for example, a person from a
difficult, poor, or deprived environment learns an admirable response repertoire. People often attribute this commendable repertoire to some inferred inner mysterious source (i.e. a "strong heart," "loving soul," "determined mind," etc.); people should not ascribe a non-scientific cause to any behavior until the objective scientific approach has had full opportunity to identify observable causes. Science has shown that made up inferred explanations are not useful. If the cause of heroic behavior or any other behavior is attributed to unknowable or non-scientific sources, then there is nothing. It is argued by some that scientific learning principles take away from the self and from those who "raise themselves up by their own bootstraps." Using the same criteria one might criticize fireproof buildings because the world is thus deprived of brave fire fighters (Skinner, 1959, p. 22). The world mourns the passing of heroes, but it does not mourn the passing of conditions which make for heroism (Skinner, 1959, p. 16). When one constructs a less volatile environment one may do away with heroes. Objective learning principles, to some, may appear to take away something from the individual, for we tend to admire heroic behavior we do not understand.

6. HUMANS ARE TOO COMPLEX: ("Complex human behavior can't be
explained and understood scientifically.") This argument implies that supposedly hard to explain cases require complex explanations. If one cannot explain a case, then supposedly, it is the fault of the concepts, not the inept use of them. It seems fairly obvious that overly complex explanations/concepts will make it more difficult, if not impossible, to understand behavior. Again, when you take out the non-scientific mentalistic explanation(s), behavior is not as complex as it may have seemed. The complex, difficult applications of the laws of physics have not necessarily hurt physics. Concepts which are difficult to explain are not false. There may be ethical or other restrictions which keep one from exploring certain situations further and/or one may not know how the variables have worked because he/she lacks the past reinforcement history of the subject in question, but these do not mean there are not principles of behavior at work in the situation. Just as a few "simple" principles have gone a long way in physics,
so also an objective analysis of human behavior has benefited from its "simple" principles.

7. DELIBERATELY INEFFECTIVE: ("The scientific approach tries to make
robots out of all of us.") A class syllabus states what each student is to learn.
However, too few students effectively learn the material. Scientific learning
principles are developed so nearly all students can effectively learn the material. Skinner asks, "Should we reject such a system on the grounds that in making all students excellent, it has made them all alike?" If effective techniques are available should education be made deliberately ineffective? It seems that the world would benefit from more effective educational systems.

8. IGNORED RICH MENTAL LIFE: ("Scientific objectivity kills the rich life of
the inner person.") Thomas Szasz in the March-April 1975 issue of Humanist
states Skinner should be held for murder of the rich inner life of people. There is another side to that coin. That is, to the degree Skinner and his colleagues
represent good science and the real explanation of behavior, those who do not use the principals should be held for murder of the real person. Our level of technology and understanding has allowed us to know a great deal about the environmental causation of behavior.

Another similar objection that has been raised by a faculty at St. Cloud State U. is that the scientific objective approach is, "...killing the spirit of university
students." Learning the objective scientific evidence about human behavior
helps us better understand who we are. It doesn't destroy anything other than
unfounded explanations of behavior. Teaching that humans possess a fictional explanation that influences behavior causes harm (kills if you like) by looking away from the true causes of behavior. Again, it is the mentalist who is killing the study of the real person and his/her environment, thereby misleading the student.

9. COMPLEX CREATIVE BEHAVIOR DOES IN ITSELF PROVE
MENTALISM EXISTS: ("The complex behavior of Skinner and other creative
behaviorists, itself, disproves the objective scientific approach.") This position
ignores the possibility that this complex human behavior could be shaped by
environmental contingencies working on a genetically determined organism. It is the environment with its great diversity that develops multiple behaviors.
Learning principles can be used to increase the possibility that people will have impressive variations in their repertoire and make varied accomplishments in their career fields. Varying learning histories produces varying results for genetically different physical organisms. Those who edit their own verbal behavior against the “real world,” (i.e. the world we talk about) do produce complex repertoires. Hence, fictions of the mind are misguided explanations of complex human repertoire.

10. NOTHING IS GAINED: ("Nothing worthwhile is gained through the use of
the scientific approach"). Consider what is gained when one looks objectively at human behavior. One finds a "richness" of humans as they really are. One should question the value of hiding in mentalistic inferences. This hiding may be done because one cannot accept the momentary implications of confronting his deterministic nature. By hiding in inferences one only avoids the problem. If one needs consolation in this area they might look at Skinner's conclusion to Science and Human Behavior. Skinner states, "We may console ourselves with the reflection that science is, after all, a cumulative progress in knowledge which is due to humans alone, and that the highest dignity may be to accept the facts of human behavior regardless of their momentary implications." (Skinner, 1959, p. 449)

11. THE "SYMPTOM SUBSTITUTION" ARGUMENT: "Symptom substitution," a term which has been used by inferential mentalists for certain supposed behavior, was intended to negate the value of objective, scientific principle's explanation for behavior change. In certain circles you do not hear as much about symptom substitution today as you did some 20 years ago, for evidence has not supported the validity of symptom substitution. This older position held that if you remove a symptom without getting at the supposed "real mental" cause, something else (another symptom) would "pop up" in its place. The core of this matter rests with what "pops up." Will it necessarily be a negative symptom born from the same "real mental" cause? The evidence suggests that the behavior that "pops up" (if any pops up) is due to environmental, not inferential mentalistic supposed causes. In one sense, you will always have symptom substitution, but not as the mentalist would have you believe. If an alcoholic, a stutterer, a phobic, a hallucinator, or a satanist is doing their negative/bad behavior for, say, 16 hours a day, and then all of a sudden they stop doing their negative/bad behavior, some behavior has to replace it, (like 16 hours of replacement). By definition, live organisms behave, and 16 hours of behavior have to be filled in with behavior. The environment will simply cause another behavior. This could be termed a substituted behavior, replacement behavior, or simply a new 16 hours of learned behavior. By using the term,"symptom substitution," it is implied that the new substituted behavior will be caused by the same source and be of the same characteristic or trait of the old behavior. The new "symptom" may be another "negative" behavior if a“negative” behavior is reinforced, and by the same token it very well may be a "good" behavior if a "good" behavior is reinforced. If it is going to be considered a "good" or "evil" behavior, first a criterion for such classification is needed. It will not necessarily be evil, but if the same environment is present that produced the
problem there is a good chance that an undesired behavior will again appear. Likewise, the behavior may just as well be "good," assuming the environment is conducive for such behavior. This should not be considered a problem only in Psychology; certain conditions must change in other areas of life to remedy problems. If a person gets the engine in his/her car fixed, and continues to abuse it, the car mechanic will not be responsible for the repairs. If a doctor "repairs" an ulcer, but then the patient keeps eating the wrong foods, the doctor doesn't "guarantee" the work either.

SUMMARY: What is lost in the scientific approach? Nothing. This objective,
scientific approach can only add to the understanding of psychology by giving more credence to that which is scientifically verifiable. Fictional, mentalistic inferences, by the nature of their approach, lack scientific data for their claims. As a science, the objective, scientific approach does remain open, yet skeptical, to other explanations of behavior.