Ah, Monday!

From Greg Williams (930329)

Rick Marken (930328.2100)

As far as how little PCT has to show compared to conventional
behavioral science: could you give one example of one of the
big accomplishments of the latter?

As you (correctly) say, conventional behavioral science CANNOT
catch mice (explain purposive behavior), while PCT HAS caught some (at
least little) mice. Likewise, conventional behavioral scientists have
caught some lint (population measures) -- perceived size depending on
one's goals; some CBS's appear to think the size pretty big, but you
appear to think it completely unimportant -- which PCT will (perhaps
someday), I predict (based on the inefficiency of using the method of
individual models in physics and other hard science), be able to do
only in very special cases and with great difficulty. So the situation
is almost symmetrical, in my view. CBS CANNOT explain purposive
behavior AT ALL and PCT CANNOT (today) and WILL NOT AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER be used to generate population measures, in general. OK, so it
looks like somebody who wants to catch lint should use CBS and someone
who wants to catch mice (at least small ones) should use PCT. But then
you call for a complete rebuilding of psychology based on PCT; I guess
the lint-catchers are out of luck. I haven't heard CBSers saying
(arrogantly) that there is NO place in psychology for explaining
purposeful behavior.

As ever,