[From Rick Marken (930323.2100)]

Ken Hacker [932303]--

I perceive arrogance in any form of intellectual discussion
which begins to sound like ideology instead of exploration.

What, specifically, has any PCTer said that sounds more like
ideology than exploration? I am really curious about this because
I get this all the time (I've been called a "true believer" on
more than one occasion, implying, I presume, some ideological, as
opposed to scientific, committment to PCT). Where's the ideology?

But I think that sometimes
the claims about how useless, futile and infantile other approaches to
understanding human behavior are, are a bit hyperbolic. Best, KEN

I will admit to claiming that conventional approaches to understanding
human behavior are useless and futile -- but certainly not infantile.
I have also explained precisely WHY I claim that such approaches
are misguided (and, hence, useless and fultile -- and, I might add,
misleading); one explanation is contained in the "Blind men and the
elephant" paper. These claims are not religious chants; they are scientific
conclusions (many of the experiments that support these conclusions are
described in "Mind Readings"). It is not enough to just claim that PCT
claims are "hyperbolic" -- that is ideology. What you should do (which
none of the "non-ideological" critics of PCT seem to feel they need to
do) is demonstrate -- mathematically and experimentally, as we do in
PCT -- exactly how PCT claims are "hyperbolic". PCTers tend to be MUCH
more interested in working models and experimental demonstrations than
sermons about the sins of ideology.

So, please, be specific. Pick one PCT claim that seems "hyperbolic" and
explain (or better, tells us how we can demonstrate to ourselves) what
is hyperbolic about it.