No.
Based on clear statements of misunderstandings about how Dr. Fred Skinner performed his research and reasonable enough questions about how Dr. Skinner came to, or supported, his philosophical claims against freewill I will briefly comment on these areas.
First, Dr. Fred Skinner talked extensively about the assumption of lawfulness in his subject matter (behavior). This assumption is common to the sciences, and Dr. Skinner wanted to assume it to what had before, and continues to be, assumed as a "non-lawful" or freely willed subject matter.
This assumption of lawfulness is similar to, but not identical to his proclamation of the nonexistence of freewill. Perhaps sticking to a "logical correctness" Dr. Skinner might have said "There is no evidence for freewill so I believe it cannot be said either way", but not wanting to be equivocal Dr. Skinner took the bolder "atheistic" position of declaring that God, or Will, was dead. Freewill, the negation of which was the premise for his scientific endeavors, was also the hobgoblin that haunted the houses of his philosophical opponents.
Skinner's position might be summarized in this way (although I am not sure Dr. Skinner ever himself did so in this way): "With every lawful relationship I can prove in animal or human behavior, I am showing that the behavior of living organisms obeys laws just as other disciplines in science describes their subjects in a lawful way." Thus, the affirmation of determinism being before an assumed premise is a progressively proved fact.
The opponents of determinism might -and have - argued that freewill exists even if it can be proved not to exist in some cases. But this is a wild goose chase (or perhaps it is an albatross?) that must be dealt with elsewhere.
Dr. Skinner began his research on the humble rat. This was almost certainly a deliberate choice since Thorndike had chosen to do work on cats. Perhaps it was a subtle animal metaphor for parallel reseach ("rat and mouse" games?). Thorndike taught his cats to escape from "puzzle boxes" and Skinner wanted to establish a way to measure behavior precisely and observe relationships in that behavior. Skinner's animal research is entertainingly, and fairly scientifically, replicated in Sniffy The Virtual Rat. Sniffy is a computer simulation of operant and classical (aka "Pavlovian " or "respondent") conditioning in a rat. Sniffy is commercial software, but there is a free download version of the demo version.
http://www.wadsworth.com/psychology_d/templates/student_resources/0534633609_sni
ffy2/sniffy/download.htm
What is particularly powerful, and perhaps the reason why Skinner's legacy is fruitful and we largely hear of Thorndike merely as a close relative of the work of Skinner's, is his clean and consistent analytical structure.
Skinner argued against hypothetical structures and "conceptual" devices that acted to largely discourage research or explain what was difficult or impossible to explain otherwise. Skinner might argue that freewill was one such device used to explain the difficult or impossible to explain world we live in. By accepting the idea of freewill we simply stop looking for answers. Skinner argued against this style of explanation in a large number of his published books and articles (Skinner 1950 for example). That Chomsky would offer up an explanatory system not based on empirical research and have an elaborate theoretical system based on nothing more than "rational insight" would simply be another instance of the very thing that differentiated Skinner from Thorndike (and Thorndike's work is relegated to the garbage heap of science history as Chomsky will be too) and other contemporaries.
Skinner's research methods stand beyond reproach. They have been replicated tens of thousands of times and have penetrated multiple disciplines.
I have personally replicated his basic research in the rat and pigeon. The single subject research design (also known as "small n") is one of his signature approaches widely used in such areas a testing medications, learning theory and other empirical research disciplines. Even Skinner's most vocal critics usually don't risk chipping their teeth on the stony firmness of Skinner's laboratory research. However, where they do criticize Dr. Skinner is in his analytical extensions of this work to the outside world (what is known as "external validity"). How much research can be extrapolated to the world outside the laboratory is hard to say and is still being discovered. So far, for Skinner's work, it appears the answer is "a lot".
Skinner, B.F. (1950) Are Theories Of Learning Necessary? Retrieved on October 9th, 2006 from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Theories/
For a general introduction to Radical Behaviorism see "About Behaviorism" which also covers the area of freewill.
![]](images/rt_edge3.gif){kind=small}
![[XML]](images/rssblue.gif){kind=small}
![[P]](images/print3.gif){kind=small}
