ABSTRACT

While it is clear from Dennett’s reply that we are in substantial agreement about what is wrong with Skinner’s reasons, both explicit and implicit, for repudiating mentalism, we are still far apart on the nature of mentalism and on the question of whether there are any circumstances under which the use of mentalistic explanations needs to be repudiated for the purposes of science and, if so, what those circumstances are. This is an important issue because, if I am right, Skinner’s analysis of behaviour survives more or less intact, it is only the reasons he gives for adopting that analysis which are threatened; whereas, if Dennett is right, there is no room for the analysis either.