Date: Mon 12/29/14 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: APA may be charged with a RICO statute violation
My contention is that your approach to the matter of torture is unscientific. You engage the concern in an intellectual manner that does not reflect the problematic of how science derives from pre-science. That is as though you argue alchemy and deny the argumentation for chemical elements. And that is how I hear others' response to questions you raise.
Your direct question about BCBA ethical practice does not engage the fundamental concern that "reward and consent" is a pre-scientific intellectual construction. The limitations described by Tolman are but the beginning of the broader critiques from the lived experience of professionals like [the three who have postedin response]: You deny the moral character of (true) social science.
When Seligman recognized he had a "science problem," he adjusted his version of "reward and consent." Only he did that in an ad hoc manner and has run into serious trouble now due to his development of a working relationship with the government torture project.
I'm not sure you understood my question. I am a critic of BCBA ethical practice. It has enormous ethical problems and valid Achilles' Heel ethical argument vulnerabilities. I was asking for the help of Vwx and others. I would like to be aware of the extent of BCBA participation in CIA torture. My question was that simple. I was not responding to anything Vwx recently said. I was recognizing his leadership as a critic of behaviorism from his earlier posts and requested his assistance.
Questions that reflect your ideology in lieu of "science" are not well posed. Thank you for explaining your ill-designed engagement with the psychology.
Perhaps this is the wrong group to ask.
RADPSYNET-MEMBERS and PSYSR-DISC (to which you also relate) do not have the so-to-speak "alchemy" frame you apparently desire. Social responsibility and concern for scientific "truth" do not seem to be your "cup of tea," I'd agree.
a.k.a. "Andrew Behavior Object"