# Critique of paper, please
**URL:** http://discourse.iapct.org/t/critique-of-paper-please/3213
**Category:** CSG2015
**Created:** [September 1, 2015, 3:16am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/critique-of-paper-please/3213 "2015-09-01T03:16:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 4
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@DagArchive](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/DagArchive)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2015, 3:16am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/critique-of-paper-please/3213/1 "2015-09-01T03:16:12Z")
[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](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.livingcontrolsystems.com_intro-5Fpapers_domain-5Fpct.pdf&d=AwMBAg&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=qT8wJj0PR3tPsHHrbae0k3qSJU2eX_Zbbf_VUiO11mk&s=Hk5lbeaukmBD5zFDtTlOok3K0XiJR17exZo4DfXAeXY&e=)
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
---
### Author:  [@PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2015, 5:45am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/critique-of-paper-please/3213/2 "2015-09-01T05:45:36Z")
[philip 8.31.2015]
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](mailto: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](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.livingcontrolsystems.com_intro-5Fpapers_domain-5Fpct.pdf&d=AwMBAg&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=qT8wJj0PR3tPsHHrbae0k3qSJU2eX_Zbbf_VUiO11mk&s=Hk5lbeaukmBD5zFDtTlOok3K0XiJR17exZo4DfXAeXY&e=)
> >
> > 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
---
### Author:  [@FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/FredNickols)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2015, 9:51am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/critique-of-paper-please/3213/3 "2015-09-01T09:51:07Z")
[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
> **···**
>
> **From:** Dag Forssell ([csgarchive@pctresources.com](mailto:csgarchive@pctresources.com) via csgnet Mailing List) [[mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](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](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.livingcontrolsystems.com_intro-5Fpapers_domain-5Fpct.pdf&d=AwMBAg&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=qT8wJj0PR3tPsHHrbae0k3qSJU2eX_Zbbf_VUiO11mk&s=Hk5lbeaukmBD5zFDtTlOok3K0XiJR17exZo4DfXAeXY&e=)
>
> 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
---
### Author:  [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2015, 2:37pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/critique-of-paper-please/3213/4 "2015-09-01T14:37:21Z")
[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](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mindreadings.com&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=NPJSzKnFTUEwNWntE-sLATxGHNgFgkFbBoP6pPAW3Fk&s=HjKpDe39csD3836VEBFDZFNqOmR4dtkfzWipQXhUwQk&e=)
> Author of [Doing Research on Purpose](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Doing-2DResearch-2DPurpose-2DExperimental-2DPsychology_dp_0944337554_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1407342866-26sr-3D8-2D1-26keywords-3Ddoing-2Bresearch-2Bon-2Bpurpose&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=NPJSzKnFTUEwNWntE-sLATxGHNgFgkFbBoP6pPAW3Fk&s=wr9KT1HfBHAnqnvFpGCR4BrJ1EcyTMOwJ-e4G5tQXQI&e=).
> Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble