[From Rick Marken (2010.03.12.1230)]
Hi Rick !
RM : Why all the hostility?
BH : Well, this is the right question (it's only relevant if you saw film "I
robot") :)). We've always talked quite nicely and friendly. There was really
no reason for my attitude to you.
I meant the hostility to PCT. I mean I enjoy informed and incisive
criticism. Even better would be critical experiments. But all I've
seen from critics of PCT lately is snarky hostility. I know this is
how a lot of "dialog" is conducted on the net (and in the American
media). But I think you and other critics (like Bruce Gregory) could
help us see whatever shortcoming there are in PCT better if they these
issues were presented in more informative manner.
But you are so close to Bill. It's impossible to talk to you as Richard.
I'm afraid it's because we both understand PCT in the same way. But
it's really easy to tell us apart because Bill's the one who is
_really_ smart.
BH : And how reorganization is defined on 11th level ? I still have doubts
that organism on page 191 (Powers 2005) could survive if we put him in the
real environment.
Doubting is good. I find that the best way to deal with it is to
either 1) ignore it or, better, 2) write a model and test it against
empirical data.
Best
Rick
···
2010/3/21 Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net>:
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
Hi Rick !
RM : But I think you and other critics (like Bruce Gregory) could help us
see whatever shortcoming there are in PCT better if they these issues were
presented in more informative manner.
BH : Yeh, I understand what you want to say. But before this can be done
someone (probably Bill) must "reorganize" some rules here on CSGnet.
MT (earlier) : You have predetermined that, to misuse the language of formal
logic "For all X, where X is a paper or idea not developed within PCT, it is
false that X has scientific value."
BH : Beside these Martin's deep thoughts I would say that problem is even
deeper. We know who represents PCT, but it's not clear who has the "author's
rights" about the ideas that we'll be exposed here on CSGnet. The problem is
that Bill is the judge who says what's his idea and what's not. What is a
contribution to PCT and what is not. It would be good if CSGnet gets the
real LAW restrictions where everybody we'll know the rules and what are the
rights and what are not.
Problematic is also Bill's attitude to some members on CSGnet.
I think that Law and Order on CSGnet with a little bit more respect to some
members will maybe enable you and Bill to get what you want (achieve your
goals). And that is probably to make PCT better model.
RM : Doubting is good. I find that the best way to deal with it is to
either 1) ignore it or, better, 2) write a model and test it against
empirical data.
�or 3) make a critics of written model and empirical data or 4) make own
suggestions for improving the model.
I agree with you. We must methodically doubt as Descartes said and make
conclusions which are so obvious that we can not doubt about them. I see a
problem in what kind of model you make and what kind of empirical data you
want to get. That's not only problem of psychology. If we consider Ashby,
human "world" is composed of "parameters and variables". It's specific human
who select them and put them together in his wanted form (system and
environment) and make an interpretation of empirical data (probably human
experiances with controled variables). It's pretty subjective. More subjects
you put together, more "objective" is "behavioral illusion".
Even Bill changes his interpertation of his own theory all the time. For
example he changed his own definition in conversation with Gavin Ritz. He
"changed his mind" considering prediction. He "changed his mind" considering
reorganization. He changed his mind about the roots of his theory with
adding arrow to essential variables.
Did all these changes base on empirical data tested against model ?
Interpretations obviously depends also from persons involved in
conversation. If you want more serious discussions, CSGnet must have more
Law and Order and clear picture of relationship between members and of
course clear model that is to be tested against empirical data.
Best,
Boris