[From Rick Marken (950705.0820)]
Bill Leach (950704.04:21) --
What I think has to occur is that a sufficient precise symbolic EAB
system has to be created that exposes the existance of: "Albus type
models" (magic occurs here), use of "standard" terms that can not
possibly have the standard meaning when examined closely, use of
identities as causal explainations, hidden logical absurdities, and the
like.
Bruce (acting for the EAB side) has confidently proclaimed that EAB can
account for data that seems (to me, att least) to be completely inconsistent
with a reinforcent model of behavior (ratio data, random consequences,
changed reference state). If he knows this much about the EAB and PCT models,
then he must also know what kind of data WOULD distinguish between the two
models. Yet Bruce has never proposed a test that would distinguish between
these models. Bruce has done nothing but defend the EAB models even though he
knows little about how these models compare to PCT (I say the latter because
Bruce now wants to get involved in a detailed analysis of the relationship
between EAB and PCT models of behavior to see how the two models really
compare).
Bruce seems to know how the EAB and PCT models compare when it comes to
accounting for existing data (including the ratio, random consequences and
changed reference state data); in every case, according to Bruce, both
the EAB and PCT models make the same predictions. If Bruce already knows this
much about the relationship between the EAB and PCT models, then I don't
see why he is unable to suggest a study that would provide data that would
distinguish between these models. Perhaps such a study will emerge from the
"comparison" exercise Bruce is doing with Bill Powers. I, however, will not
be holding my breath.
The fact that EAB people already like to run "hard" data controlled
experiments and are uncomfortable with data anomolies is I think, a sign
that this is the one branch of behavioural science where a dispasionate,
solid, logically, and mathematically based challenge could be taken
seriously.
I hope you are right.
Martin Taylor (950704 14:30) --
My point was and is that we all want to investigate the organism, and to do
so effectively one must concentrate on the details of how control fails, not
on the degree to which it succeeds. Rick's statement emphasises that point.
I completely disagree with your point so I am disappointed if any statement
of mine emphasizes it. Let me make a clear, de-emphasizing statement: The
best information we have obtained about how organsisms work comes from
studies where control (by the organism, of course) has been nearly perfect.
Best
Rick