Question

explain how Noam Chomsky's point about the various ways we might respond verbally to a painting is meant to be a criticism of B. F. Skinner's account of verbal behavior

Answer 1

The best way to answer this question is by considering the specific area where their views are overlapping - human language. Chomsky's review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior is a devastating critique of Skinner's behavioristic attempt to explain human language as a matter of conditioning. Basically, the ability to speak a human language is the ability to form an infinite range of grammatical responses. An attempt to explain this capacity as a kind of associationistic conjunction and series of conjunctions fails to account for the most basic features of language. Furthermore, the set of rules used by each speaker are known only implicitly and we have no direct access to Them . Our adult forebears cannot impart by reinforcement what they do not know. Skinner's theory of language as conditioned behavior response is fundamentally incoherent, and the same would hold true for any blank slate conception- i.e. certain empircist views- of the human mind.

In Conclusion Skinners work is a model of the world. Unlike many theoretical models though, it has a great deal of utility when understanding and learning.

That said, when dealing with humans, you must also consider language that they speak and its role in social and cultural understanding. To merely reduce humans to behavioural terms, is to miss much of the richness of human interaction.

At the final evaluation, the degree to which Skinner’s work misses or doesn't miss the point - very much depends on your question.