Abstract
Science is what scientists do and, especially, what they say about what they do. Science is a way of talking about the world that enables the listener to behave more effectively in that world. Understanding science, then, is a matter of understanding the language of science. Scientific verbal practices are codified and recorded so that they can affect the behavior of all scientists, including those without access to the original controlling variables. What we know about the world is simply the way we have learned to talk about the world. We know best what is most useful about the world, in the sense that what we know enables us to behave effectively in the world. Scientists are unique in that they, more so than non-scientists, have the experience of behaving as effectively as possible—they can predict and control. This is what makes all the difference, in the sense that it makes science different from other ways of knowing about the world. Science is not simply one way of knowing about the world, it is arguably the most effective way of knowing about it. Scientific talk leads to effective action.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As quoted in Petersen, A. (1963). The philosophy of Niels Bohr. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 19(7), p. 12.
I will refer to speaker and listener throughout this paper, both for consistency and for clarity. The terms should be taken to refer generally to all forms of speaking (e.g., vocal, written, gestural) and listening (e.g., hearing, reading).
Of course, ignorance can sometimes be a virtue, as when “a fresh set of eyes” or an impartial observer sees a problem in a new way, but those exceptions probably prove the rule and are beyond the scope of the present discussion.
If you do not believe that it is better to switch and need more convincing, a quick internet search of “Monty Hall Problem” will return many detailed explanations of the problem and, even better, a number of computer simulations that will allow you to play the game again and again to see for yourself.
References
Bernard, C. (1865/1957). An introduction to the study of experimental medicine. New York: Dover Press.
Blakely, E., & Schlinger, H. (1987). Rules: function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10(2), 183–187.
Campanario, J. M. (2000). Fraud: retracted articles are still being cited. Nature, 408(6810), 288.
Catania, A. C., Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. (1982). Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: interactions with nonverbal responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38(3), 233–248.
Dawkins, R. (1995). River out of Eden: a Darwinian view of life. New York: BasicBooks.
Day, W. F. (1969). Radical behaviorism in reconciliation with phenomenology. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12(2), 315–328.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: a restatement of the reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co..
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Hackenberg, T. D. (2013). What has happened to Skinner's empirical epistemology? The Behavior Analyst, 36(2), 277–281.
Hayes, S. C., & Brownstein, A. J. (1986). Mentalism, behavior-behavior relations, and a behavior-analytic view of the purposes of science. The Behavior Analyst, 9(2), 175–190.
Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Zettle, R. D., Rosenfarb, I., & Korn, Z. (1986). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45(3), 237–256.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4(3), 267–272.
Hineline, P. N. (1983). When we speak of knowing. The Behavior Analyst, 6(2), 183.
Ioannidis, J. P., Munafo, M. R., Fusar-Poli, P., Nosek, B. A., & David, S. P. (2014). Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 235–241.
Joyce, J. H., & Chase, P. N. (1990). Effects of response variability on the sensitivity of rule-governed behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54(3), 251–262.
Matthews, B. A., Catania, A. C., & Shimoff, E. (1985). Effects of uninstructed verbal behavior on nonverbal responding: contingency descriptions versus performance descriptions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43(2), 155–164.
Meehl, P. E. (1967). Theory-testing in psychology and physics: a methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 34, 103–115.
Michael, J. (1974). Statistical inference for individual organism research: mixed blessing or curse? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 647–653.
Miguel, C. F., Frampton, S. E., Lantaya, C. A., LaFrance, D. L., Quah, K., Meyer, C. S., et al. (2015). The effects of tact training on the development of analogical reasoning. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 104(2), 96–118.
Moore, J. (1984). On behaviorism, knowledge, and causal explanation. The Psychological Record, 34(1), 73–97.
Moore, J. (1985). Some historical and conceptual relations among logical positivism, operationism, and behaviorism. The Behavior Analyst, 8(1), 53–63.
Moore, J. (2010). Behaviorism and the stages of scientific activity. The Behavior Analyst, 33(1), 47–63.
Moxley, R. A. (1997). Skinner: from essentialist to selectionist meaning. Behavior and Philosophy, 25(2), 95–119.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
Palmer, D. C. (1991). A behavioral interpretation of memory. In L. P. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 261–279). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Palmer, D. C. (2013). Some implications of a behavioral analysis of verbal behavior for logic and mathematics. The Behavior Analyst, 36(2), 267–276.
Palmer, D. C. (2014). Verbal behavior. In F. K. McSweeney & E. S. Murphy (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Operant and Classical Conditioning (pp. 368–391). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Palmer, D. C. (2016). On intraverbal control and the definition of the intraverbal. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 32(2), 96–106.
Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science a crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528–530.
Schlinger, H., & Blakely, E. (1987). Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10(1), 41–45.
Schlinger, H. D. (1990). A reply to behavior analysts writing about rules and rule-governed behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 77–82.
Schlinger, H. D. (2013). A functional analysis of psychological terms redux. The Behavior Analyst, 36(2), 255–266.
Schlinger, H. D., & Normand, M. P. (2013). On the origin and functions of the term functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(1), 285–288.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74(1), 127–146.
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: an expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37(1), 5–22.
Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52(5), 270–277.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1977). Why I am not a cognitive psychologist. Behavior, 5(2), 1–10.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Bornemann-Cimenti, H. (2016). Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited? Scientometrics, 110(1), 365–370.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158–177.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declare that he has no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Normand, M.P. The Language of Science. Perspect Behav Sci 42, 675–688 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0123-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0123-8