[From Rick Marken (950605.1330)]
Bruce Abbott (950604.1510 EST) --
The current [non-PCT] view [of behavior] seems to make logical sense,
appears to be supported by common sense and by considerable data, and
provides a framework for new research...So when some other proposal comes
along, you may give it a quick once-over, but you probably will not invest
the effort needed to really understand it and to work out its implications.
I'm wondering whether the current view of behavior is anything more than just
that -- a view. I say this because I think it is true that most psychologists
would, indeed, agree that the current view is supported by considerable
data (and, apparently, rejected by none).
I think of the "current view" in the behavioral sciences as any version of
the cause-effect model of behavior: S-R, selection by consequences, output
generation. If behavior is, indeed, the control of perception, then it is
rather surprising that there is not more data that rejects the current view.
Although the behavior of a control system can look like S-R, selection by
consequences or output generation, the behavior of a control system is VERY
different than an S-R, selection by consequences or output generation _model_
of behavior.
The fact that the results of virtually all the studies that have been done in
the behavioral sciences are seen as being consistent with the current view
suggests, to me, that people are not really comparing these results to the
behavior of a working model that embodies the current view; they are only
looking for qualitative match between what the see and what they think they
should see. So, the fact that there is SOME relationship between an
independent and a dependent variable, for example, is enough to prove that
the basic assumptions of the cause-effect model are correct; stimuli DO cause
variations in behavior.
I think this qualitative approach to evaluating theories is one reason why we
(pCTers) are often accused of developing "straw man" theories when we try to
test working versions of S- R, selection by consequences and output
generation models against our experimental results. The models we develop
based on our understanding of the "current view" always fail - - rather
dramatically in most cases -- and I don't think conventional behavioral
scientists are used to this; they certainly don't expect to see their
"current view" of behavior just flat out rejected by the data. They are used
to seeing data that is ALWAYS consistent with their view -- data that can be
explained (verbally) and accounted for (by curve fitting).
So I'm not sure that any amount of data could convince conventional
psychologists that their current view is wrong. Any result produced in a PCT
experiment could be "explained" by the conventional view. If the data clearly
reject the current view, conventional psychologists can always say that our
model is a "straw man". This is what happened to Tom Bourbon and Bill Powers
in their paper demonstrating the inablity of S-R and output generation
models to account for the simplest tracking behavior. It is what happened
to me in a paper demonstrating the inability of a selection by consequences
model to account for goal directed behavior when the consequences of actions
are random.
I guess what I'm saying is that most conventional behavioral science is
actually pre-scientific and, thus, not really vulnerable to disproof. I
suppose I would change my mind about this if some conventional behavioral
scientist would propose a working model (based on the current view) of some
behavior that we could test against PCT. Does anyone know of such a model?
Best
Rick