A behaviorist correspondence theory of truth

Abstract: For many decades there has been an ongoing feud between the fields of behaviorism and cognitive science. This feud is not about specific scientific findings, it is about deep philosophical convictions, and about what terms and methods it makes sense to use when studying psychology. In the late 1950’s, behaviorism was declared dead when it was convincingly argued that behaviorism could not explain the nature of language, a centerpiece of human psychology. But since then behaviorism has slowly risen from its grave, as a new behaviorist theory of language emerged. The new behaviorist theory of language is called Relational Frame Theory (RFT), and it is part of a new behaviorist paradigm called Contextual Behavioral Science (CBS). This paradigm also includes a behaviorist psychotherapy called Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), which in the last decade has become popular across the world. Thus, the feud has once again become active, and the question about which philosophical principles are most suitable for the science of psychology is yet again something that needs an answer. But things have changed since the mid-1900’s when the discussion was last active. The philosophy of CBS is not exactly like that of earlier versions of behaviorism, having developed into a more explicit and coherent set of philosophical principles, summarized under the name functional contextualism. Old arguments against behaviorism do not apply to the same degree. So it is time for a new look at this debate, taking into consideration what functional contextualism and RFT has to offer. According to Contextual behavioral science, cognitive science generally entails a commitment to the correspondence theory of truth, the idea that something is true if it corresponds with reality, or a worldly fact. CBS, on the other hand, makes an explicit commitment to a pragmatic theory of truth, which focuses on the consequences (i.e. usefulness) of a statement or theory, instead of its correspondence with reality. Because of the supposed centrality of these theories of truth for the divide between cognitive science and behaviorism, I will focus on what exactly this divide is about, and whether there is any way that the differences can be reconciled. I will argue that the divide isn’t as big as it may seem when we take a closer look at the philosophical principles and empirical theories of CBS, and that it may in fact be possible to bridge this divide by formulating a version of the correspondence theory that is compatible with CBS. In part 1 I present a quick sketch of behaviorism as contrasted with cognitive science, and the connection between behaviorism and the pragmatic theory of truth, as well as the connection between cognitive science and the correspondence theory of truth. In part 2 I give a more detailed description of the philosophy and science of Contextual behavioral science, including the tools for understanding language in CBS terms. In part 3 I present a more detailed description of the correspondence theory of truth, giving an overview of the different versions of this theory that have been proposed throughout the history of philosophy. In part 4 I make a careful evaluation of the CBS objections towards the correspondence theory of truth, and arrive at a version of the correspondence theory that can be expressed in CBS terms. I will conclude that this version is compatible with the underlying philosophy of CBS, even though the CBS pragmatic theory of truth claims otherwise. I call it a behaviorist correspondence theory of truth.