Lazare:
Well without quoting anyone per se -- who was against this idea ---
I believe a PCT Dictionary would be very helpful.
Bruce:
I spoke against putting too much hope in a PCT dictionary because it lends
itself to the perception that this is all about semantic distinctions and
the control of words and jargon, and that you only have to put your
existing view of things in the right phrases and everything will go
swimmingly.
For serious students I agree it would be helpful, but the definitions and
commentaries should direct attention firmly and repeatedly to specific
experiences of control, disturbance, error, etc. in experiments, demos, and
models.
Powers:
The basic question we would have to answer before starting such a
dictionary is whether it is to consist of _translations_ or _technical
definitions
.A technical dictionary, on the other hand, would give one and
only one meaning for each term. As we have found, this has no
effect on people who want to go on using terms the way they
always have done, nor does it prevent them from assuming that
when a term is used with its technical meaning, it is being used
with the meaning they prefer.
Strictly for in-house consumption, a technical dictionary might be useful.
Mark --
I also, believe a good place to start is with the Technical end first.
I have 2 dictionaries of a pseudo-science called psychology containing 1000's
of words allegorical in nature ranging from:
ABASEMENT:
(H. Murray's) term for a need to surrender one's self, to confess, to atone,
to accept punishment for real or imagined shortcomings
TO
ZOOPHILIA:
One's preferred means of sexual arousal and gratification is with animals.
I am not trying to imply a relationship between Murray and Zoophilia, only a
lot of misperceptions can occur using words based on an allegorical science.
What I am trying to propose is to start a simple PCT dictionary of words based
in measurable meanings.
(my computer dose not type all the symbols I would like to use so I will keep
it simple- plus Math is not my strong suit)
As we have done in statistics
Mean X = the sum of x /N -for ungrouped data
Mean X = the sum of x ( f )/N -for ungrouped data
Therefore, could have simple formulas attached to the basic words, e.g.
Perceptual Error (RS-PS)=
I hate to have to keep referring to the Physical Sciences, but the real plus
they have is 10 Universal Physical Constants. Those 10 little icons are
responsible for a lot of really big events. Also, you can plug and play them
in different combinations to test new frontiers.
Psychology as built mountains of research of alleged significance on levels of
.05. or worse yet, I can't believe anyone could ever published data
describing a correlation less than .72 as significant. At the .72 level you
have accounted for 50% of the variance - I other words your data is as useful
as flipping a Coin.
The really sad point is for years people have received Millions of dollars in
grants for data that was less predicable than flipping a quarter.
Using PCT in my thesis I obtained a Mean correlation of .995 with a standard
deviation of .005. I was dumbfounded while in my defense some one said I
should have done a significance test, to see if the data was significant.
I am just trying to say no matter what words you use in describe the terms of
PCT, you cant refute the DATA is a hell of a lot better than what psychology
has come up with, to date.
I have always learned more when my assertions were proved wrong, than when they
were proved right.
For me PCT has proved the psychology I was taught is filled with embellishments
and fallacies. It was a Major Disturbance to my sanguine beliefs of psychology.
Mark Lazare
DTSDTO@AOL.com