Soccer and Behaviorism

Consider this characterization of logical behaviorism (LB), which is a thesis in the philosophy of mind:

“Logical behaviorism is a thesis about the meanings of our mental state terms or concepts – in particular, that all statements about mental states and processes are equivalent in meaning to statements about behavioral dispositions. So, for (again, an overly simplified) example, “Henry has a toothache” would be equivalent in meaning to a statement such as “Henry is disposed (all things being equal) to cry out or moan and to rub his jaw”. And “Amelia is thirsty” would be equivalent to a statement such as “If Amelia is offered some water, she will be disposed (all things being equal) to drink it.”

According to LB, statements about mental states are semantically equivalent to ones about behavioral dispositions. For example, “John is in pain” means “John is disposed to grimace, rub a relevant body part, and express sounds of suffering if his body is influenced in an injurious manner.”

Now, there are clear counterexamples to LB. First, one can grimace, etc. but not experience the slightest pain. If you watch professional soccer, you catch my drift. Pro soccer players commonly fall to the ground, roll around, wince, and rub their feet, legs, heads, etc. to trick the referee into calling a foul although the players are not experiencing pain. After the foul is called, they might hop right up and continue playing as if nothing painful had happened. * I’ll call this the faker objection to LB.

Second, one can experience pain and yet not demonstrate pain-related behavior. For example, one might knock his knee on a table and yet not show that he is in pain. Why not? He wants to appear tough and resilient in front of his friends. I’ll call this the tough guy objection to LB.

The faker objection and the tough guy objection seem to show that LB is false.

*Athletes in other sports engage in such shenanigans, but soccer is paradigmatic.