Philosophical Assumptions of Science in Behaviorism: Determinism, Accountability and Parsimony (Discussion Post)
5 min read Discussion: Philosophical assumptions of science
For this discussion, post something to the discussion board related to the philosophical assumptions and behaviorism or your Week 3 readings. Engage in a conversation with your course community related to at least ONE of the following:
- Explore the ethical implications of determinism in the context of personal responsibility and moral accountability. Consider a hypothetical situation where someone commits a harmful act. How might the concept of determinism influence your judgment of that person’s actions? Discuss whether determinism challenges or supports the idea of holding individuals accountable for their behavior. Share your insights into how society grapples with the moral and legal aspects of determinism.
- Think about a significant decision you’ve made recently, whether it’s related to your career, relationships, or daily life. Share your experience in the group and discuss: Did you rely on concrete evidence and observation (empiricism) when making the decision?
- Describe a real-life situation where you’ve seen the principle of parsimony effectively applied in understanding or addressing behavioral issues. Briefly explain the impact.
Behavior is lawful and has causes
Knowledge comes from objective observation
Manipulate variables to show functional relations
Repeat findings to establish reliability
Rule out the simplest explanations first
Question claims, including our own
Model discussion post
Original example for study purposes (about 450 words). The post answers the determinism question and briefly adds parsimony; choose the prompt that fits your own experience.
Determinism and Accountability: Explaining Behavior Is Not Excusing It
Determinism is the assumption that the universe, including behavior, is lawful and orderly, so events occur as a result of other events rather than randomly or through an uncaused will (Cooper et al., 2020). In behavior analysis, this means behavior is a function of a person’s genetic history, learning history and current environment. Skinner (1971) argued that crediting people with “autonomous” choices hides the real variables that control behavior.
Consider a hypothetical case: a 19-year-old named Jordan breaks into a car and assaults the owner who confronts him. From a deterministic view, I would ask what led to this behavior. Perhaps Jordan grew up where aggression was modeled and reinforced, had few opportunities to learn other ways of meeting his needs and was with peers who reinforced theft. Determinism changes my judgment from “Jordan is a bad person” to “Jordan’s behavior has identifiable causes.” That shift can reduce blame-driven anger and point toward prevention.
However, I do not think determinism removes accountability. In fact, a behavior analyst could argue that it supports accountability, defined in behavioral terms. Consequences such as restitution, supervision or loss of privileges are themselves environmental variables that can change future behavior, for Jordan and for others who observe the outcome. What determinism challenges is retribution based on the idea that Jordan could simply have chosen otherwise in a vacuum. It suggests that consequences should be designed to change behavior and protect others, not only to punish.
Society struggles with this tension. The legal system generally assumes free will and moral responsibility, but it also recognizes determining factors. Insanity defenses, mitigating circumstances at sentencing and diversion programs all acknowledge that history and conditions shape behavior. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for crimes committed under age 18 is unconstitutional, citing juveniles’ immaturity, susceptibility to peer pressure and still-developing character. Rehabilitation programs, restorative justice and evidence-based treatment reflect a deterministic view that changing environments can change behavior.
A note on parsimony. Parsimony asks us to rule out simple, logical explanations before considering more complex or abstract ones (Cooper et al., 2020). [Replace with your own experience, for example:] In a classroom where I volunteered, staff assumed that a student’s outbursts during math reflected “an anger problem.” A simple functional assessment showed that outbursts occurred mainly when worksheets were presented and usually led to removal from the task. Teaching the student to ask for a break and breaking the work into smaller parts reduced outbursts within weeks, without labeling the child.
Question for classmates: If behavior is determined, how should we decide which consequences are fair, and who should design them?
References
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. Knopf.
Make it yours: discussion posts are graded on personal engagement. Use your own example for parsimony or empiricism, cite your Week 3 readings and reply to classmates by building on their examples with one of the six attitudes of science.
Sample reply to a classmate
Original example: “I liked how you used empiricism to choose a new job by comparing actual commute times and salary data rather than relying on a ‘gut feeling.’ Philosophic doubt might add one more step: questioning whether the data you gathered, such as one week of commute times, are representative. In behavior analysis, we would take repeated measures before drawing conclusions. Did you find that your decision held up once you started?”
Frequently asked questions
What are the six attitudes of science in ABA?
Cooper et al. (2020) describe determinism, empiricism, experimentation, replication, parsimony and philosophic doubt.
Does determinism mean people are not responsible for their actions?
Not necessarily. Behavior analysts view responsibility in terms of how consequences affect future behavior. Determinism argues against blame based on an uncaused free will, not against accountability.
Related reading: mentalistic vs behavior analytic statements and ethical dilemma WIKI page for behavior analysts.
More model assignments posted today
- SCS 224 journal: Haiti clean water study
- SCS 224 journal: gang violence research
- SCS 224 journal: uncontacted tribes of Brazil
- Accreditation and curriculum development
- Supply chain risk PowerPoint
- Neurocognitive psychiatric evaluation
- Cloud, quantum and compliance cost proposal
- Concurrent access and data integrity
