Commentary prompted by Vaughan's Reply to Silberberg and Ziriax by Alan Silberberg and John M. Ziriax, and by William Timberlake, with concluding remarks by William Vaughan, Jr.

Four writers traded letters in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.

They argued about how behavior analysts should talk to each other when ideas clash.

The piece is pure talk—no new data, no clients, no trials.

No side won. The journal printed every rebuttal, showing the field its own family feud.

The exchange shows that even experts disagree on what counts as good theory versus good technology.

Israel (1978) said most fights come from mixing up theory and technology. The 1987 letters are live examples of that mix-up.

Moxley (1989) later claimed science and tech feed each other like a two-way street. The 1987 writers still sounded like the street ran only one way—so the 1989 paper quietly updates the map.

Hartmann et al. (1979) also wrote a 1970s commentary, but theirs scolded stats lore; the 1987 group scolds word choices. Same format, different target.

If you chair journal clubs or mentor students, use these letters as a lesson. Show how today’s polite arguments about assent, telehealth, or ACT echo the same 1987 tension between tidy theory and messy practice. Model the fix: state your technological move first, then the concept it rests on. Your team will argue less and produce faster.