[From Bill Powers (2011.05.10.0205 MDT)]
Hello to all of an extended list.
The experience some of us had with a group-written and -edited paper was encouraging, although the result has left editors unimpressed. I think it may be possible to use the same medium, Google Docs, to generate another paper that will much harder to dismiss without review as "not the sort of thing we publish." A good part of the rejections that fell in that category would have been better expressed by saying "The things we publish concern phenomena that are defined in the theories of behavior we believe in, and your paper doesn't discuss those phenomena." An obvious example would be a paper sent to JEAB which doesn't discuss stimulus control of behavior or operants and instead speaks of intentions, goals, and control of input. That's not the sort of paper published in JEAB.
What I propose is a frontal assault, rather than an attempt to sneak up on the mainstream. If PCT is correct in its essentials, then no other theory now in use is correct. I suggest that we write a paper that takes on each major theory now accepted and shows that it is incorrect and how PCT handles the same phenomena better. Of course anyone in PCT who doesn't agree that this is the case will not be required to contribute and can join the other side to argue against us.
I contributed to the last group attempt at writing a paper by writing a version of what I thought we should publish. This time I can't do that. I don't have the knowledge, the resources, or the standing in psychology. The first thing we have to do is select the theories we are going to demolish and state them fully and authoritatively so we can avoid setting up straw men to knock over. We have to find the strongest and most widely-accepted version of each theory, stated so clearly that if it were correct we ourselves would become convinced of it. It might be that communications with the major proponents of each theory might be required, or at least serious explorations of their writings that can result in a fair and complete representation. This is a job for academics with a lot of experience and students who are learning this stuff anyway, who can do or have already done literature searches with the facilities at hand. I can join in the PCT part of the project but I simply don't have the familiarity with the field required to play Devil's Advocate.
Tim Carey reported that when he first demonstrated MOL to Warren Mansell, Warren's reaction was to say "You go right for the schema, don't you?" That's what I'm proposing here. I'm saying that we should try to get psychology to go up a level -- at least one -- and, aiming right for the schema, talk about the real issues that separate PCT from other theories.
If we do this right it can have two kinds of results. First, by trying to express existing theories in as convincing a way as we can, we may discover places where PCT needs to adopt some existing ideas or deal more seriously with phenomena we haven't considered. And second, we will challenge PCT in the same way proponents of those theories would challenge it, thus anticipating and finding ways to deal with counterarguments.
My proposal is pretty general and lacks useful details. I invite Bruce Nevin to start a Google Doc that is a brief outline of this project, which participants can edit until it looks like a definition of a writable paper. Then, in a month or two or three, we can start writing the paper that will put PCT on the map for good before I stop writing and start rotting.
Best,
Bill P.