A radical behaviorist epistemology recognizes the recursivity inherent in behavior analysis: as behaving organisms, we not only take behavior as our subject matter but we are also part of it. Such a naturalization of epistemology, however, is not without its critics. In this article, my aim is to assess some of the arguments that were directed against this approach by the American philosopher Thomas Nagel in his book The Last Word (1997). In particular, I address Nagel's arguments regarding (1) the shortcomings of naturalistic explanations of scientific knowledge and (2) the impossibility of circumventing a realistic, representational epistemology. Regarding (1), I argue that although Nagel is right in arguing that there is no neutral or external viewpoint from which we can understand scientific knowledge, the naturalistic explanation of such knowledge proposed by radical behaviorists is not only possible, but have important practical advantages, insofar as it allows the identification of the variables that control scientific behavior. Regarding (2), I argue that although behavior scientists will frequently talk and write in descriptive ways, the function of descriptive verbal behavior in science is not to represent reality but to coordinate our collective behavior in dealing with the environment. I conclude that instead of avoiding an evolutionary account of rationality, as Nagel suggests, we have every reason to further pursue it.

中文翻译：

---

谁有遗言？关于言语行为的激进行为主义，科学和言语行为。

激进的行为主义者的认识论认识到行为分析中固有的递归性：作为行为有机体，我们不仅将行为作为我们的主题，而且我们也是其中的一部分。然而，认识论的这种自然化并非没有批评者的。在本文中，我的目的是评估美国哲学家托马斯·内格尔（Thomas Nagel）在他的著作《最后的话》中针对这种方法的一些论点。（1997）。我特别谈及内格尔关于（1）科学知识的自然主义解释的缺点和（2）绕开现实的，代表性的认识论的可能性的论点。关于（1），我认为尽管纳杰尔认为没有中立或外在的观点可以理解科学知识是正确的，但是激进行为主义者对这种知识的自然主义解释不仅是可能的，而且具有重要的实践优势。 ，因为它允许识别控制科学行为的变量。关于（2），我认为尽管行为科学家会经常以描述性的方式交谈和写作，描述性言语行为在科学中的作用不是代表现实，而是协调我们在应对环境中的集体行为。我得出的结论是，我们没有像纳杰尔（Nagel）所建议的那样避免理性的进化论解释，而是有充分的理由进一步追求它。