From Tom Bourbon [931215.1441]
From Bob Clark (931214.1630 EST)
DYNAMIC PSYCHOLOGY
and,
From Bob Clark (931214.1710 EST), on information theory.
These were nice posts, Bob. They, and the others in your series of the
past two days, were concise and crisp. They rushed through the discussions
on dynamics and information theory the way a spring breeze rushes through a
musty old house left boarded up during a long winter.
TOM BOURBON [931209.1320]
I am certain a few people on this net would argue that, given data
such as these, there is no behavioral phenomenon for the authors to
interpret with DSA. But the data clearly meet the criteria accepted
in modern behavioral science and the authors did use DSA to
interpret the data.
Bob:
So they were published.
Sad, isn't it? Extensive literatures, entire careers, and immense
reputations can be made from statistical (but statistically significant)
noise. As a fringe benefit, practitioners of this statistical and
theoretical sleight of hand enjoy the privilige of rejecting an occasional
paper on PCT.
Bob:
You add:
Tom:
"anyone who says DSA, **as it is typically applied in
behavioral-cognitive science**, subsumes PCT."
Bob:
Your implied conclusion, with which I agree, is that such a person
really has no idea what PCT is "all about."
I left it unsaid. You said it clearly.
Bob:
Your further contribution, Tom Bourbon (931209.1530), with its
references and quote from Turvey, includes terms and concepts
borrowed from other fields that I find inconsistent with much of my
knowledge of physics and other fields.For example, you note:
Turvey's uses of "attractor" seem a little slippery to me -- the
problem is probably in me.That the "problem" is Turvey's, not yours, is directly shown by your
quote:Turvey speaks (1) of how any reachable point is "like a point
capable of attracting" etcLong ago I concluded that any item defined exclusively by analogy is
questionable at best.
At best, and the literature on dynamical analysis in psychology is far from
the best case.
You have provided extensive and detailed reasons to ignore anything
connected with "dynamic psychology."
If only we could; practitioners of that art are counted among our reviewers
and those we wish might be our editors.
I hope my impression is correct: that you also find these attempts
without merit.
Utterly; but the dynamic psychologists have *very many* publications in
*good* journals and in many books. If Osmo is correct, that must make them
the real scientists in any of our encounters, and we are something less. [I
couldn't resist, Osmo. 
]
Thanks again for your prompt response to my post.
Thank *you*, Bob.
Until later,
Tom