Volume 4, Issue 4, October 2015, Pages 213-214
Authors:
Roger Vilardaga, R. Trent Codd, III
Some argue that the depth of a scientist can be defined by its ability to understand and grasp deep philosophical issues that concern not just what is knowledge, but how are things known. Such minds have a natural inclination to drink from philosophical discourse, yet they might not be in the business of professional philosophy. This deep connection between science and philosophy is not surprising since philosophical discourse is at the core of what science is about, and both start with a very essential cognitive act: a question.
Contextual behavioral science has proposed for decades that exploring and understanding our philosophical assumptions is a required aspect of our craft, and since the mind of a scientist is also the mind of an explorer, many clinicians and practitioners have also embarked in this endeavor. As a result, a large body of literature has been published over the years, with numerous contributions examining the importance of philosophical issues and the direct connection between Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and its functional contextual philosophy (e.g., Biglan & Hayes, 1996; Hayes, 2004; Hayes, Hayes, Reese, & Sarbin, 1993; Long, 2013; Vilardaga, Hayes, & Schelin, 2007). This literature has addressed a very important and critical question: What is reality?, a question that in philosophy, falls under the rubric of “ontology”, a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, and that has been approached from a variety of philosophical traditions (e.g., essentialism, phenomenology, etc.).
Functional contextualism argues about the need to hold a pragmatic truth criterion – an approach to the original question “what is reality” – and in some forums this position has been described as “aontological”. This statement, in particular, has generated a great deal of controversy among contextual behavioral scientists themselves and among academics from related disciplines. Inspired by this debate, this special issue attempted to provide a solid platform to present and elaborate these ideas in full length.