2021 Volume 35 Issue 2 Pages 165-176
Behavior analysis avoids positing mental events as causes of behavior, whereas psychology has produced one mental concept after another. Which is a better scientific “research programme”, one that posits mental states or one that does not posit them? From ancient times to the present, philosophy and science have progressed by using Ockham’s razor. Ockham’s razor is frequently summarized as “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” This concept promotes new discoveries and plays an important role in the sciences, including physics and biology. In addition, many writers have justified Ockham’s razor by proposing reasons why entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. It has been said that the discussion of parsimony took a probabilistic turn in the 20th century. Modern statistics can be used to analyze and justify Ockham’s razor. The present essay focuses on statistical test theories and analyzes their logic from the viewpoint of the philosophy of science in order to show that a “research programme” that does not posit mental states is preferable to one that does. The paper contends that behavior analysis has adopted a better scientific methodology.
