Does Introspection go hand in hand with Behaviorism

Well done ! You are one of the few here who have really thought about this!

The answer is they are each is delimited to particular contextual purposes.. Read up on Merleau-Ponty and Varela (embedded cognition/ second generation cognitive science) for attempts at a resolution. But be aware that this issue creates an epistemological and ontological quagmire .

Introspection, as a method of knowing, has not been able to answer anything. Thinking about one's emotions or mental states will not provide an analysis of behavior.
Behaviorism is the philosophy of selective pressures on behavior vis-a-vis cultural, biological, and personal histories. This led to a methodology of studying and analyzing behavior that called for observation, prediction, verification, and replication of behavior under certain conditions; but not introspection.

Really ? I suggest you read a bit of Shakeseare !

Have a look at your phrase 'under certain conditions'. That's where the epistemological problems lie

If you know of a peer-reviewed case of analysis of behavior via introspection I'd love to read it.

If you think the criteria for what we call 'knowledge' is confined to 'peer reviewed scientific publications' I recommend an elementary course in philosophy. Science is essentially about prediction and control. As far as behaviorism is concerned ( a la Skinner) its demise relative to considerations of complex cognition came in 1957 with Chomsky's attack on behavioristic views on language acquisition. 'The fact that so-called behaviour therapy is popular amongst therapists in the treatment of 'problems' is merely a convenient application of a term like 'behavior' being over generalised. (Ref: Wittgenstein word games)

Demise? Have you not seen the National Academies of Sciences or Sugeon General's reports on behavior analysis? Are you that unaware of the rise in certified and licensed practioners?

And Chomsky...as a quick note, that was 1959 that his review of Skinner's book was published. The more important point is that Chomsky, himself, dropped his theory on generative grammar. Linguists moved onto other theories, but Skinner's carried on and to this day has informed peer-reviewed research that has helped thousands of people with speech and language challenges.

Regarding philosophy and science, I much prefer looking to science for explanations of natural phenomena and translational work for usable practices.

Yes...all good money making 'control stuff' to solve 'problems' ! Unlike in the UK it would seem to be 'the norm' in the US to indulge in 'therapy'

BTW I speak as a former peer reviewed published experimental psychologist (psycholinguistics) who would merely give you a quick wink for your naivity if you think behaviorists know much about how normal human behavior operates.

NB surely you understand that the significance of Chomsky was NOT with respect to the validity of his own theory of grammatical competence, but in pointing out that Behaviorism simply did not work when it came to normal language acquisition.

I see. And how exactly does the behavioristic account not work for language? Also, since you added the word "normal," how does the principle apply to people with deficient repertoires but not to those with typically developing ones? I would find it interesting to hear what principles would be at work. Perhaps you could put your peer-review skills to work and point out the methodological flaws in some of the peer-reviewed work published in recent issues of the Analysis of Verbal Behavior? I look forward to your comments.

No. The onus is on you to explain how behaviorism can apply to language acquisition when the child never actually repeats an adult utterance since he\she is physiologically incapable of such a reproduction. The adequacy/ acceptability of a verbalization is determined by the social context and the analysis of that tends to be problematic as far as empirical research is concerned.
In any case, we digress from the main issue concerning introspection since deflation of it to reductionist mechanisms seems unlikely, given the status of reductionism even in biology.

Just curious...what would you say are the major contributions of psycholinguistics or linguistics? The analysis of the phoneme? Semantics? Generative grammar? Perhaps there is something for which I am unaware. I would love to know.

From the behavioral literature you seem to be completely unaware of the work that has been done to develop vocalizations in the non-vocal child, the development of typical speech in individuals with restricted and stereotyped speech patterns, as well as the work on developing particular grammatical constructions in typically developing children.

Linguistics has had very little to contribute to THERAPEUTICS which is what you continue to talk about, other than for provide a vocabulary for discourse (as indeed did the various schools of psychoanalysis).There is of course the old adage that parish priests can have as much therapeutic success as any other 'practitioner' who provides one to one attention on an individual's 'problem'. Psychologists may aspire to the title 'scientists' and establish 'learned journals' steeped in jargon, but the bottom line is that 'behavioral control' is a different ball game to 'understanding behavior'. The fact that we cannot directly observe 'thinking' does not mean we can sweep it under the carpet, or equate it to 'behavioral properties'.

Anecdote aside...When it can be demonstrated with thorough description of the independent variables, then we have something that can be reproduced and further tested.

The behaviorist does not deny "thinking". The behaviorist is simply careful not to change the dimensions of the thought and place it in a different world.

The phrases 'thorough description' and 'independent variables' are merely an attempt to talk the scientific talk. I was pretty good at that, AND picking holes in it !
I may be wrong but you don't seem to have wrestled with research yourself. If you had you might be a little bit more cynical about the literature.

Are you cynical to the point that you reject that scientific analyses of behavior occur?

Depends what you mean by 'scientific analysis'. Even physics has problems separating 'observer' from 'observed' in some situations so we can logically expect the situation of systems observing like systems to be even more problematic From a philosophical point of view 'experimenters/observers contemplating subjects' is merely one paradigm for the operation of 'cognition'. (Heidegger for example). And from a 'systems theory' viewpoint, the observation of observation (aka 'second order cybernetics') presents as a potential infinite regress which may be impossible to escape from in an attempt at simplistic 'objectivity' assumed by mainstream science. One thing seems apparent to me...that the mimicking of natural science procedures in the social sciences is more an attempt at justifying 'professional status' than it is at establishing strict epistemological paradigms. How often have you come across that nebulous phrase in a paper '...but more research is needed' ? (...cue the next research publication along the status ladder !).

I'm going to put you down for "yes, too cynical".

Fine.