Defining applied behavior analysis: an historical analogy.

Durand (1982) looked at how ABA should define itself. The paper says ABA is not a bag of tricks. It is a way of thinking that treats every claim as a testable guess.

The author tells a short history of 19th-century medicine. Doctors back then stopped guessing and started testing. M says ABA must do the same.

The paper finds that ABA’s core is experimental determinism. That means you let the data decide. You never trust a statement just because it sounds good.

The second core is philosophic doubt. You stay ready to change your mind tomorrow. If new data show you were wrong, you cheer, not pout.

Charlop et al. (1985) took the same idea into hospitals. They used functional analysis to find why patients skipped pills. The method worked because they let the data talk, just as Durand (1982) said.

Ludwig et al. (2023) later used the same rule on factory floors. They watched workers, tested tiny changes, and cut injuries. Again, experimental determinism in a new home.

Shyman (2016) seems to push back. It says ABA’s cold data lens can hurt disabled people if we forget human values. The two papers do not clash. M tells us how to test; Eric tells us why we must also listen.

You can use this paper as a daily compass. When a teacher says, “This kid is defiant,” you ask, “What data show that?” When a parent wants quick advice, you say, “Let’s test it first.” Keep a tiny doubt alive in every report you write. That habit is what makes you an applied behavior analyst, not just a helper with stickers.