[From Dennis Delprato (940228)]
Rick Marken (940228.0900) --
Bill Powers (940226.0800 MST) --
[PCT science] can't be done by four or five people scattered around the
country doing experiments in their spare time on themselves and their
families with home computers and no money, while making a living doing
something else.
I would be interested in any suggestions others migh have for increasing
participation in PCT science.
See below for another perspective on this.
"Originality is favored by freedom from cultural restraint, from profes-
sional specialization and narrow and prescribed training. It is for
this reason that so many major scientific advances have been made by
amateurs--interlopers Darlington calls them. He writes:
It is no accident that bacteria were first seen under the micro-
scope by a draper, that stratigraphy was first understood by a
canal engineer, that oxygen was first isolated by a Unitarian
minister, that the theory of infection was first established
by a chemist, the theory of evolution by a man who was unfitted
to be a university instructor in either botany or zoology."
(Kantor, The Logic of Modern Science, p. 7)
And many other cases of nonprofessionals who made major advances
in science can be cited. Einstein and Infeld (1938): "It is a strange
coincidence that nearly all the fundamental work concerned with the
nature of heat was done by non-professional physicists who regarded
physics merely as their great hobby" (p. 51). And so on.
Thus, the historical record indicates that the plight Bill
bemoans may be a mixed blessing. Of course, the world has
changed, and whatever principles that underlie the favorable
position non-professionalism gave to creative scientific thought
may no longer apply, but I doubt it.
Perhaps the major issue is integrity that seems challenged
whenever commercial interests and those of fame come to the
fore. Has there ever been more fraud and deceit in science
that we have in our era?
What does the acclaim of the masses indicate? I recall recently
reading about a mathematician, who is acknowledged as a major
figure in his field, who said he was pleased in three people
read one of his papers. To many, the ultimate attraction of
scientific and other scholarly activity is to be "ahead of/
apart from the pack." When too many begin touting something,
it is probably getting moldy. Thus, when PCT -- treated as
Rick Marken would today approve -- becomes the official
theory of the American Psychological Association, count me
out, unsubscribe me.
An important threat to intellectual integrity is the commercial
area known as technology. In certain respects, the last thing
a theory of behavior needs is an applied/clinical wing. I
believe PCT has already felt the pangs imposed by this form
of commercial appeal. Substitute for "philosophy" for "theory
of behavior" to better appreciate the impact of commercialization.
When PCT is commonplace at the Dalton's, Waldenbooks, and the like,
it will be too late.
Yes, if we merely absorb what we are superficially exposed to
every day, the isolation of PCT may seem discouraging. We
do like others to like what we like -- to some extent. But,
there is another perspective.
Dennis Delprato
psy_delprato@emunix.emich.edu