[From Bill Powers (940416.0930 MDT)]
Dag Forssell (940415.1200) --
Thanks for the copy of Keillor's wonderful talk.
···
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Clark (940415.1733) --
I appreciate your analysis of the conflict between Martin Taylor and
me. It's not quite as serious a conflict as it seems on the surface,
and it's not entirely about mathematics. I think that one day Martin
will develop an information-theoretic analysis of a basic control
system, at which point we will all see what it has to contribute. A
lot of the argument, which Martin and I are only slowly freeing of
irrelevant side-issues, is about interpretation and terminology. I
have no question that Martin grasps the basic relationships as I do
-- just consider his post on the ins and outs of analog modeling on
a digital computer.
As to the resolution, it's true that different kinds of analysis can
be appropriate under different circumstances, but not if they
contradict each other. A contradiction means incompatible premises
or incompatible facts, and that's a no-no in what is supposed to be
a scientific system. It's worth the trouble to peel away superficial
disagreements to get at the direct contradictions.
I don't, by the way, put a lot of stock in the simple canonical
control system model. It's always been surprising to me that it
handles any real behavior as well as it does; I had expected that we
would need nonlinear functions, on-off control, control by
parameters, and multilevel models even to handle simple behaviors.
The fact that we don't, in simple cases, is nice, but only means
that we're dealing with simple aspects of behavior. I don't make any
predictions as to what model will be needed to deal with higher
levels, except that it will bear a strong family resemblance to the
canonical model. When I start work on any more complicated model,
like the Little Man Version 2 or the operant-conditioning model
(which I promise to resurrect), I always try to wipe my mind clean
of previous models and start over with the problem itself. As best I
can.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Bourbon (940415.1738) --
Part of the struggle is won; you sent to the net. I'll try a test
message, too, but I'll wait for a direct send from you to confirm
your address, since Martin couldn't get through.
I agree with Martin about the quote he sent: don't let it happen
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Marken (940415.1900) --
Don't go away mad. Let's get a network discussion going on ways and
means of dealing with wrong ideas. I agree with your stand on
sticking to the basic concepts of PCT. Reviewing posts for the last
year and a half, I see that most of what you say is unexceptional
and in fact right on the mark. You don't lose your temper very
often, and then only when an impasse occurs. Certain points in an
argument seem to be reached where there is a direct conflict between
what someone says and what you maintain is the right idea. The
conflict is so direct that there's no point in pressing it. The
problem is to discover where it's coming from. This means
deliberately putting the conflicting ideas on hold and finding out
why the other guy is insisting so hard (and also why you are
insisting so hard).
I came across a remark by Ken Hacker over a year ago: he said you
were telling him he didn't know how to do research. If either you or
I had been practicing control theorists, we would have recognized
that as an opening to go up a level. Instead of doing that we just
said "There, there, Ken, don't be upset" and continued at the same
level. Ken supplied an opportunity to get off the specific conflict
and start a discussion of what doing research means, what kinds of
research there are, what the problems might be, and so on. What's
different about the way we do PCT research and more conventional
approaches? That in turn might have opened up an even higher level:
what do we think we can actually learn about human nature? Why do we
want to do research in the first place? Are there any other ways to
find out what we want to know?
It's hard to let go of a conflict, to let go of the desire to win
it. Going up a level feels like abandoning a struggle, giving up.
That's what it is. It's getting into a position from which the
struggle is seen as futile or secondary, and new considerations come
into view. Maybe the conflict will get even worse; if so, up a level
again. No conflict is worth dwelling on; once you realize there's a
conflict, you know everything about it that's interesting. It's not
interesting if you can prove with impeccable logic that you are
right, and the other guy can do the same for his own view. If the
conflict persists despite impeccable logic on both sides, the
problem is not at the logic level. The problem may be at a higher
level (principles, system concepts) or, come to think of it, at a
lower level (facts). The only place you DON'T need to look any
further is at the level where the conflict is obvious.
If there's a problem, let's deal with it. What is the disagreement,
and when that is known, why does it exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,
Bill P.