Acceptance of PCT

[From Bruce Abbott (980623.1250 EST)]

Rick Marken (980623.0830) --

Of course, the reason for the lack of interest and recognition
is well understood but no less frsutrating because of it; to do
PCT properly one has to be willing reexamine the foundations of
their discipline. For most people, this would mean starting their
careers all over again, from scratch.

"Well understood" implies that the mechanism whereby an observed result may
occur is known and has been shown to apply to the specific case at hand.
The proposed mechanism certainly _could_ explain the observed result, but
through what research was it _established_ that this explanation actually
applies here?

Are there any reasonable alternative explanations you can think of?

Regards,

Bruce

[From Rick Marken (980623.1250)]

Me:

Of course, the reason for the lack of interest and recognition
[of PCT] is well understood but no less frsutrating because of it;
to do PCT properly one has to be willing reexamine the foundations
of their discipline. For most people, this would mean starting
their careers all over again, from scratch.

Bruce Abbott (980623.1250 EST) --

Are there any reasonable alternative explanations you can think
of?

Yes.

1) Behavioral scientists have done research which shows that
a significant amount of behavior is done open loop; so controlled
variables are not an important aspect of behavioral organization.

2) Behavioral scientists are, in general, as dumb as mud.

3) Behavioral scientists have been testing for controlled
variables for years so that there is now a hugh catalog of
controlled variables available in the behavioral science
literature.

There are surely more. Bill and I have rejected all these
possibilities (except, possibly, 2); I reject it but Bill
still thinks it's in the running;-)) over root beers at
CSG meetings.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Bruce Abbott (980624.0745 EST)]

Rick Marken (980623.1250)]

Me:

Of course, the reason for the lack of interest and recognition
[of PCT] is well understood but no less frsutrating because of it;
to do PCT properly one has to be willing reexamine the foundations
of their discipline. For most people, this would mean starting
their careers all over again, from scratch.

Bruce Abbott (980623.1250 EST)

Are there any reasonable alternative explanations you can think
of?

Yes.

First things first. Before I asked the above question, I asked this:

"Well understood" implies that the mechanism whereby an observed result may
occur is known and has been shown to apply to the specific case at hand.
The proposed mechanism certainly _could_ explain the observed result, but
through what research was it _established_ that this explanation actually
applies here?

I'll take your avoidance of this question as an answer in the negative.
Your "well understood" reason in terms of the Kuhnian argument has little if
any empirical support other than the observation it is invoked to explain,
and therefore properly belongs in the realm of hypothesis rather than
established fact.

Now we're ready for your answer to my second question:

Are there any reasonable alternative explanations you can think
of?

Yes.

1) Behavioral scientists have done research which shows that
a significant amount of behavior is done open loop; so controlled
variables are not an important aspect of behavioral organization.

2) Behavioral scientists are, in general, as dumb as mud.

3) Behavioral scientists have been testing for controlled
variables for years so that there is now a hugh catalog of
controlled variables available in the behavioral science
literature.

There are surely more. Bill and I have rejected all these
possibilities (except, possibly, 2); I reject it but Bill
still thinks it's in the running;-)) over root beers at
CSG meetings.

I can think of several more reasonable possibilities, none of which appeal
to facts contrary to evidence (your possibilities 1 and 3) or assert
stupidity (your possibility 2) as a stereotypical property of a large group
of people (and by implication, superior intelligence in one's self).
Perhaps you have settled in favor of the Kuhnian hypothesis because it is
the only alternative you have been able to generate that appears to fit the
facts. This does not preclude the possibility that other reasonable
explanations remain which were never considered.

Regards,

Bruce

[From Rick Marken (980624.0720)]

Me:

Of course, the reason for the lack of interest and recognition
[of PCT] is well understood but no less frsutrating because of it;
to do PCT properly one has to be willing reexamine the foundations
of their discipline. For most people, this would mean starting
their careers all over again, from scratch.

Bruce Abbott (980624.0745 EST) --

I can think of several more reasonable possibilities [for
lack of interest in and recognition of PCT], none of which
appeal to facts contrary to evidence

I'd love to hear what you think they are. Why do _you_ think
there has been such a lack of interest in and recognition of PCT?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken