Critique of paper, please

CSGnet Archive CSG2015
1

[From Dag Forssell (2015.08.31.2000 PDT)]

I have just uploaded a new paper here


http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/intro_papers/domain_pct.pdf

I was approached a month ago by a fellow at Stanford who had questions
about Powers, and in particular a statement from his personal website.
This fellow interpreted the statement

PCT fits into the space between these approaches

with this illustration:

836a1a1.jpg

That would not be how I think about it, but that got me thinking. I
started drafting the article and used it for a presentation two weeks
ago. It was well received.

Seems to me that when people ask about PCT, we try to explain. We have to
explain a lot before someone can begin to appreciate the difference. So
here is an attempt to show the difference without explaining a thing.

Is this clear? Accurate? Overstated?

This two page document can be used as a handout.

I am about to include it in an enlarged edition of the Book of Readings
and would rather not make some embarrassing mistake.

Let me know.

Also, let me know if you would like to see a preliminary version of the
upcoming Book of Readings. I will be open to suggestions regarding
sequencing of the contents. I see that people download it and a few buy
it. I am happy if it helps people discover PCT and see how extensive the
literature is.

Best, Dag

2

[philip 8.31.2015]
836a1a1.jpg

You can only divide 2 circles into 3 x 2/3 because 3 x 1/2 only = 3/2 circles.

Here’s my review…

I think the handout is too dense. And I don’ t think PCT has much to do with astronomy anyway (except for world models). I think PCT should do a better job attacking specific journaled papers, instead of commenting on the conceptual foundations of competing schools of thought. I have yet to see a detailed critique of conventional psychology experiments, in a manner that promotes retesting and disproving conventional hypotheses. That’s pretty much it. Basically, if you ask me, I would tell you there’s an infection and we need more macrophages.

I would like to see the upcoming book of readings. I’ll give my suggestions.

···

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Dag Forssell csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Dag Forssell (2015.08.31.2000 PDT)]

I have just uploaded a new paper here


http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/intro_papers/domain_pct.pdf

I was approached a month ago by a fellow at Stanford who had questions
about Powers, and in particular a statement from his personal website.
This fellow interpreted the statement

PCT fits into the space between these approaches

with this illustration:

That would not be how I think about it, but that got me thinking. I
started drafting the article and used it for a presentation two weeks
ago. It was well received.

Seems to me that when people ask about PCT, we try to explain. We have to
explain a lot before someone can begin to appreciate the difference. So
here is an attempt to show the difference without explaining a thing.

Is this clear? Accurate? Overstated?

This two page document can be used as a handout.

I am about to include it in an enlarged edition of the Book of Readings
and would rather not make some embarrassing mistake.

Let me know.

Also, let me know if you would like to see a preliminary version of the
upcoming Book of Readings. I will be open to suggestions regarding
sequencing of the contents. I see that people download it and a few buy
it. I am happy if it helps people discover PCT and see how extensive the
literature is.

Best, Dag

3

[From Fred Nickols (2015.09.01.0548)]

Just read the two-pager attachment, Dag. It’s great! I will add a link to it. FWIW, I see no mistakes.

Fred Nickols

836a1a1.jpg

···

From: Dag Forssell (csgarchive@pctresources.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 11:16 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Critique of paper, please

[From Dag Forssell (2015.08.31.2000 PDT)]

I have just uploaded a new paper here

http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/intro_papers/domain_pct.pdf

I was approached a month ago by a fellow at Stanford who had questions about Powers, and in particular a statement from his personal website. This fellow interpreted the statement

PCT fits into the space between these approaches

with this illustration:
[]
That would not be how I think about it, but that got me thinking. I started drafting the article and used it for a presentation two weeks ago. It was well received.

Seems to me that when people ask about PCT, we try to explain. We have to explain a lot before someone can begin to appreciate the difference. So here is an attempt to show the difference without explaining a thing.

Is this clear? Accurate? Overstated?

This two page document can be used as a handout.

I am about to include it in an enlarged edition of the Book of Readings and would rather not make some embarrassing mistake.

Let me know.

Also, let me know if you would like to see a preliminary version of the upcoming Book of Readings. I will be open to suggestions regarding sequencing of the contents. I see that people download it and a few buy it. I am happy if it helps people discover PCT and see how extensive the literature is.

Best, Dag

4

[From Rick Marken (2015.09.01.0740)]

···

Fred Nickols (2015.09.01.0548)–

FN: Just read the two-pager attachment, Dag. It’s great! I will add a link to it. FWIW, I see no mistakes.

RM: Looks OK to me too.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble