I found not too long ago a
rather scathing, page-long dissertation by Mary Powers, written at least
two decades ago, lamenting exactly these types of exchanges in this
forum.I’ll refrain from doing the same, and simply request a return to a
professional discussion.Thank you,
� *barb
� � �
[From Dag Forssell (2016 08 20 12:40 PST)]
Barbara,
Do you by any chance refer to About quibbling on CSGnet, at
http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/intro_papers/mary_pct.html
In the Book of Readings on page 57.
[
···
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:11 AM, John Caines > johncaines@gmail.com > wrote:
At 09:41 AM 8/20/2016, Barbara Powers wrote:
I am actually finding this thread compulsive reading,
By far the best thread of the year! Knowing that you guys are
probably all PhD’s,âand yet you have polar opposite theories or
beliefs, mathematical assumptions, it’s way way better than watching
big brother here in the UK on TV!!!
I remember watching on TV some years ago a small documentary about
Fermat’s Last Theorem by Simon Singh, Great video on YouTube about
it by the way… Anyway Andrew Wiles solved it after 358 years.� I
might have to email him about this thread,� as if there is a God
in mathematics, calculus,âthen he is surely it.� Just can’t
believe you PhD’s have such strong beliefs as to being right when 1 has
to be wrong!!� I might just give Professor Wiles the call!! ð,
really want to know, if Rick really has found a new way or is on track
with his spreadsheet, and everyone else is wrong, or if Rick is wrong
and needs correcting.� Either way,� a great thread,�
please keep up the this tennis rally a while longer.� Regards
John C
Maybe we can set up a little sweepstake on this, but which one of
you can set the betting odds correctly??? ð
I might have to get Prof Wiles to do this as well!!!
On 20 Aug 2016 4:31 p.m., “Bruce Abbott” bbabbott@frontier.com wrote:
[From Bruce Abbott (2016.08.20.1130 EST)]
�
From: Richard Marken
[
mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:56 PM
To:
csgnet@lists.illinois.edu;
Alice Mcelhone
apmcelhone@aol.com;
Warren Mansell
wmansell@gmail.com
Cc: Tim Carey
<
Tim.Carey@flinders.edu.au>; Henry Yin
hy43@duke.edu; Richard Marken
rsmarken@gmail.com
Subject: Withdrawing from LCS IV
�
RM: To the editors of LCS IV (cc CSGNet)
�
RM: I am asking that the paper and the Preface that I submitted for
publication in Living Control Systems IV (LCS IV)� be withdrawn.� � I do
this reluctantly because LCS IV is to be a collection of papers honoring
the scientific legacy of Bill Powers and I certainly want to participate
in honoring that legacy, � But I now believe that LCS IV is not the
appropriate forum in which to do that honoring. Recent discussions on
CSGNet with people who will be contributors to LCS IV have convinced me
that many-- probably most – of the papers that will be included in that
volume will be based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the
behavior of living systems that Bill Powers spent his entire professional
career trying to dispel. So, from my perspective, LCS IV will be more of
an insult than an honor to Bill’s legacy and I would rather not be
associated with it.
�
BA: Throughout my recent exchanges with Rick on the power-law issue I
have assumed that Rick simply did not understand the serious deficiencies
in his analysis.� Consequently I tried in several ways to
demonstrate those deficiencies and to explain why they are fatal to his
model.� For me it has always been about offering constructive
criticism that one would want from a colleague, supported by mathematical
analysis, logic, and empirical demonstration.� From time to time
Rick would make some comment to the effect that my efforts were aimed at
âopposing PCT�? or âdefending the status quo.�?� I always
thought these were offered with a smile and a wink � a playfull jab
rather than a serious charge � and consequently ignored them…� But
Rickâs tirade above leaves no doubt about his real feelings, and not
just toward me but apparently toward everyone who was invited to
contribute a chapter to LCS IV � in other words, most of those wwho are
engaged in doing real science from a PCT perspective.
�
BA:� When Alex Gomez-Marin came to CSGnet for help with a
scientific problem, here was an opportunity to show a practicing
scientist (a physicist with training in neuroscience no less!) what PCT
might offer by way of a solution or at least a start toward a
solution.� Rick quickly responded with his âsolution,�? which
Alex immediately noted is seriously flawed as it is based on a
misconception of what the equation for computing the radius of curvature
actually does.� Alexâs point-by-point critique of Rickâs
proposal was met with denial by Rick and the assertion that he had
discovered a new version of the âbehavioral illusion,�? which he now
believes has been misleading all prior power-law researchers.� It
was at this point that Martin Taylor and I attempted to convince Rick
that Alexâs critique was accurate.� I canât speak for Martin,
but I was appalled to find Alex quite rightfully angered at Rickâs
refusal to listen, and withdrawing from CSGnet in frustration.� I
hoped that if I could explain Alexâs critique clearly enough to Rick,
he would finally see that he was committing a serious error.� Then,
perhaps, we could get back to the problem Alex had originally asked for
help with.�
�
BA: It has turned out to be an exercise in futility.� So
attractive to Rick is the idea that he has discovered a new form of the
behavioral illusion, that he has refused even to listen to his critics �
how else can one explain why hhe asks for explanations already given and
fails to acknowledge them as even relevant?� Instead of seeing his
critics as trying to help him understand the flaws in his reasoning, he
has come to believe that âthey�? are only interested in opposing the
advancement of PCT.� Apparently Rick thinks that science is
advanced, not by carefully examining challenges to oneâs analysis, but
by ignoring them and instead, attempting to undermine the credibility of
those who see flaws in it.� Thatâs a great strategy � – if you
are trying to make political points.� But itâs the antithesis of
good science.
�
BA:� If Rick wants to have an honest discussion of his proposal
from a scientific point of view, Iâm still willing.� That
discussion would begin by addressing the criticism that including log D
in the regression does nothing more than reveal the equation by which V
and D are used to compute the radius of curvature.� My âparable
of the rectangles�? shows that this is indeed the case for a similar
(but easier to understand) example.
�
BA:� This exchange might be followed by Rick demonstrating that
he understands why using sines and cosines to draw an ellipse enforces
movements in which tangential velocity of the point around the ellipse
speeds up in the straighter sections and slows in the sharper curves,
thus necessarily producing a relationship between log velocity and log R
that conforms to the power law.� (Rickâs latest spreadsheet, in
which one attempts to keep a small circle inside a larger one that is
tracing an ellipse in this way, enforces this relationship in the motion
of the target and, to the extent that the small circle stays within the
larger one, the small circleâs as well.)
�
BA:� In fact, it would be nice if Rick could provide a clear
explanation for why he believes that the tangential velocity with which a
path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding a power-law
relation.� It seems to have something to do with his derivation of
V from D and R, which I guess is supposed to enforce a power-law relation
regardless of how velocity is related to the sharpness of a curve in the
data.� Rick has never made that clear to me, and I may have
misunderstood.
�
BA:� If Rick refuses this challenge, it will demonstrate his
disinterest in understanding his critics.� Repeating the mantra
that the data produced by his model âconform to the power law�? and
thus âprove�? his model to be correct (they do no such thing, for
reasons already explained) will be counted as unresponsive.
�
BA:� It would also be nice to hear from anyone else who has
been attempting to follow along in this discussion of the power law, on
CSGnet or otherwise.� At present I have no idea whether anyone is
even interested in having this discussion continued, let alone whether
anyone has formed an opinion based on it.� By now it must seem to
most like philosophers arguing incessantly about how many angles can
stand on the head of a pin . . .
�
Bruce
�
