Assumptions versus implications

[From Bruce Abbott (960127.1000 EST)]

Rick Marken (960126.1945) --

Cycles and epicycles were introduced into Ptolemaic theory _after_
observations (like the retrograde motion of Mars) were made that did
not fit the simple geocentric model. You have managed to introduce an
"epicycle" in advance of the observations.

I have introduced nothing. I have only stated an implication of Killeen's
theory.

Killeen's model makes a prediction that, in all likelihood, does fail;
the prediction about the effect of arbitrarily added incentives. The
prediction of Killeen's model, sans your added epicycle (see Note 1)
is that arbitrary addition of incentives will lead to an _increase_ in
responding. If we do this experiment and find that responding _decreases_
(as predicted by PCT) then Killeen's model will only work with the addition
of your epicycle (Note 1). The need to add this epicycle is what suggests
that Killeen's model is fundamentally wrong (what is fundamentally wrong,
of course, is the assumption that incentives cause responding; the correct
assumtion is that responding controls incentives).

Ah, but that's the whole point; Killeen's model does NOT make the prediction
you say it does. I didn't have to "add" anything!

Rick, when you add epicycles (assumptions) to a theory in order to make it
fit the observations better, you are changing the theory post hoc. When
you use the current structure of a theory to predict outcomes you have not
yet observed, you are deducing the implications of the theory under
specified conditions. I am only doing the latter. There was no "need" to
"add epicycles," nor did I. You're just blowing bubbles.

Killeen's model makes a prediction that, in all likelihood, does fail;
the prediction about the effect of arbitrarily added incentives. The
prediction of Killeen's model, sans your added epicycle (see Note 1)
is that arbitrary addition of incentives will lead to an _increase_ in
responding. If we do this experiment and find that responding _decreases_
(as predicted by PCT) then Killeen's model will only work with the addition
of your epicycle (Note 1). The need to add this epicycle is what suggests
that Killeen's model is fundamentally wrong (what is fundamentally wrong,
of course, is the assumption that incentives cause responding; the correct
assumtion is that responding controls incentives).

Perhaps it would add clarity if you would identify what you think I "added"
to Killeen's theory. Your "note 1" promised to contain that information,
but only turned out to quote my deduction from the theory, which makes no
mention of any new assumtions that had to be tacked on in order to derive
this prediction.

An implication of a theory is not an added assumption.

Regards,

Bruce