[From Rick Marken (950912.1830)]
Bruce Abbott (950912.1900 EST)--
Rick, I feel so ashamed.
Don't. Many people make the same mistake as you. Just look at all the
trendy science movements that seem to be epidemic today in the life
sciences -- chaos, artificial life, situated behavior, complex systems,
neural networks, etc, etc: plenty of argument and reasoning but precious
few, if any, attempts at experimental disproof.
Starting today I'm going to stop trying to show others in psychology how
PCT provides the key to understanding human and animal behavior (i.e.,
arguing that its ideas are RIGHT).
Promises, promises;-) But you really don't have to stop trying to show others
that PCT is right; just add "experimental attempts to disprove" to the top
of your list of methods of showing it.
I had mistakenly thought that argument and reasoning are tools of science;
Only half; the other half -- the half that Galileo nearly got fried for --
is experimental TEST. A good experiment is one that puts one's reasoning
(theory) to the ultimate test; if what you observe is not what your
reasoning (no matter how good) leads you to expect, then the reasoning
(theory) goes out the window. Of course, if the reasoning (theory) is
just verbal blather (like reinforcement theory) then there is no way to
disprove it by test. In science, the reasoning must make clear (and,
preferably, quantitative) predictions about what will be observed in
an experimental test.
I had no idea that these are "the path of inquisitorial religion".
Sure you did. You know why Galileo got in trouble with the Inquisition;
the results of his tests didn't agree with church reasoning (and those
guys in the church were-- and are -- first class reasoners).
From now on, logic and reasoning are out! (;->
Wrong conclusion. Logic and reasoning are most definitely still in.
They must, however, be disciplined by experimental test. Most of the
logic and reasoning that goes into PCT has already been done; the
model exists thanks to the remarkable reasoning abilities of Bill
Powers. What PCT needs is people who are willing to try to disprove
it. PCT must be subjected to (more) experimental tests. I am confident
that it will pass with flying colors, but why not actually do the science?
People who are convinced by reasoning and logic that PCT is right believe
in PCT the way they believe in a religion. If people want to believe in
PCT that way, it's up to them. But it's really easy to test PCT. Such
tests (when passed) not only increase one's confidence in the correctness
of the model, they also help you do what Dag Forssell keeps talking you
about; "feel PCT in your bones"
Best
Rick