# cause-effect, beh. sci., etc.

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/cause-effect-beh-sci-etc/13253>\
**Category:** CSG1993\
**Created:** [April 13, 1993, 1:07pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/cause-effect-beh-sci-etc/13253 "1993-04-13T13:07:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Avery\_Andrews](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/848f3c/32.png) [@\_Avery\_Andrews](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Avery_Andrews)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 1993, 1:07pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/cause-effect-beh-sci-etc/13253/1 "1993-04-13T13:07:13Z")

</div>

[Avery Andrews 9304`2.0830]

(Rick Marken (930412.0900))

\>Only under very special circumstances can o be reconstructed from  
\>the input, i, (or from i and the reference,r); specifically, when  
\>i = o + d. But even in this case (as Bruce Nevin pointed out) the  
\>relationship is just coincidental -- it is not actually the result

I'm assuming that the characteristics of the output function are  
fixed, which seems right for short time scales, tho not for long  
ones (muscle fatigue). I doubt that control would work very well  
if the first derivative of the output function switched from positive  
to negative too often (but this has already been talked about, I  
believe).

\>When i is a non-linear  
\>function of o there is no relationship between observed values of i  
\>and o.

Which is why `and r' is part of my story, as well as a fixed output  
function (which should have been mentioned to begin with).

\>If inputs  
\>are at least SOMEWHAT involved in the determination of behavioral  
\>outputs, then why not keep trying to improve our methods of determining  
\>how inputs do this? Behavioral scientists are unlikely to turn to The  
\>Test until the realize, very clearly, that o is not a function of i.

Because this strategy is obviously guaranteed to lead nowhere, & I don't  
think that all behavioral scientists are complete idiots, tho there  
is undoubtedly a lot of professional obtuseness around. Repeating stuff  
that people will already know will not get through this, just  
like you can't demolish a stone wall by banging at it with a crowbar--  
you have to stick the bar into suitable crevices and yank in the right  
direction.

\>But it's not useful: it's wrong. I am convinced that this cause-effect  
\>"expository vocabulary" has effectively prevented behavioral scientists  
\>from seeing what PCT is all about. It's not about cause and effect;  
\>it's about control.

But PCT uses the cause-effect vocabulary as well -- given its inherently  
flakey nature, it either has to be entirely avoided, or used in a  
flexible manner with explicit warnings. For long time scales,  
i-o cause-effect exposition is not helpful when dealing with control  
systems.