[From Bruce Gregory (990414.1016 EDT)]
A quote from _The Economist_: "AN ECONOMIST, it is said, is someone who
cannot see something working
in practice without asking whether it would work in theory." Meant as a
facetious comment, it is actually a good description of what any modeler
wants to know, "Does my model predict what I observe?"
Bruce Gregory
[From Bruce Gregory (990414.1222 EDT)]
Rick Marken (990414.0900)
Based on my experience with economics, a more appropriate quote
might be:"AN ECONOMIST is someone who cannot see something working in
theory without asserting that it works in practice".
Touche'!
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (990414.0900)]
Bruce Gregory (990414.1016 EDT)--
A quote from _The Economist_: "AN ECONOMIST, it is said, is
someone who cannot see something working in practice without
asking whether it would work in theory."
Based on my experience with economics, a more appropriate quote
might be:
"AN ECONOMIST is someone who cannot see something working in
theory without asserting that it works in practice".
I think the real problem is that economists don't really know
the difference between model (theory) and observation (practice).
I'm sure, for example, that there isn't an economist around who
doesn't believe that it's a fact (observation) that "capital
investment drives economic growth". In fact, this "fact" is a
theory that has nothing to do with the facts.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Tracy Harms (19990416.0223)]
Rick Marken (990414.0900):
...
I think the real problem is that economists don't really know
the difference between model (theory) and observation (practice).
I'm sure, for example, that there isn't an economist around who
doesn't believe that it's a fact (observation) that "capital
investment drives economic growth". In fact, this "fact" is a
theory that has nothing to do with the facts.
Rick, I've never been happy with the way you attempt to segregate theory
and fact by tying the latter with observation. This practice is either
confusing for producing specialized terms where none are needed, or it is
just a mistake.
When dealing with any theory, insofar as the theory is accurate the truth
indicated by that theory is a fact.
There are no observations independent of theories. The only way to observe
anything is in the context of pre-existing theories, for it is only by way
of theoretic presumption that any aspect of the world may be interpreted.
Although not everybody here is happy with my broadened view of theories,
much of the appeal of PCT, for me, has been that it makes the basic
theoretic context explicit: The control system portion of a control loop
instantiates "a theory" that a certain input can be controlled in a certain
manner.
Tracy Harms
Bend, Oregon
[From Bruce Gregory (990416.0925 EDT)]
Tracy Harms (19990416.0223)
When dealing with any theory, insofar as the theory is
accurate the truth
indicated by that theory is a fact.
This statement sounds like dogma.. What makes a theory "accurate" as
opposed to "adequate"? What is "the truth indicated by a theory"? How do
we know that this "truth" is a "fact"?
There are no observations independent of theories.
I've hear this statement many times, but it seems to be dogma rather
than having any empirical content. How can we test it? The thermometer
reads 70 degrees F. What theory is this observation dependent upon?
Interpreting the observation does involve theory, but this is not what
you appear to be claiming.
The only
way to observe
anything is in the context of pre-existing theories, for it
is only by way
of theoretic presumption that any aspect of the world may be
interpreted.
More dogma? How do we test this statement?
Although not everybody here is happy with my broadened view
of theories,
Count me in. By denying the distinction between facts and theories what
exactly are you trying to accomplish?
Bruce Gregory
[From Bill Powers (990416.0942MDT)]
Bruce Gregory (990416.0925 EDT)]
Replying to Tracy Harms (19990416.0223)
When dealing with any theory, insofar as the theory is
accurate the truth
indicated by that theory is a fact.This statement sounds like dogma.. What makes a theory "accurate" as
opposed to "adequate"? What is "the truth indicated by a theory"? How do
we know that this "truth" is a "fact"?
I'm with you, Bruce. It's perfectly possible to report an observation
that's not dependent on a theory, unless one want to get cute and say our
very nervous system is a theory about the world (I don't).
If I say that I see a pink elephant riding a bicycle, that is a statement
of fact unless I don't actually see it and am lying to you. If I describe
how fast it looks to be going, the clothes I see it wearing, and the words
I hear it saying to me, all these are factual reports with no theory involved.
I get into theory only when I start making statements about these
observations -- for example, if I say "The elephant is really there" or "I
am hallucinating the elephant." When I talk _about_ observations, I am
invoking or making theories.
Those of us who accept that the experienced world consists of neural
signals in a brain (a theory) can easily admit that the statement "The
thermometer indicates 70 degrees Fahrenheit" is really shorthand for "I
perceive a thermometer indicating 70 degrees, and I imagine that they are
Fahrenheit degrees since we are in the USA." The longhand form is a
completely factual report about which I cannot be mistaken. I do perceive
what I am perceiving, and I do imagine what I am imagining, and no one can
say different if I'm reporting truthfully. I, at least, know whether my
report is factual.
Theories can be false; observations cannot. That's how I define those terms.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Lloyd Klinedinst (990416.0330CDT)]
What are people's thoughts about this topic in the light of what Dick
Robertson writes in his book with Bill, _Introduction to Modern Psychology:
The Control Theory View_, pp 7-13, sections 1.5 What is a Fact?, 1.6 How
Facts Are Established Within Models, 1.7 Models, Evidence and Proof in
Psychology?
So we have a distinction among oberservations [Oops,Germanic PCT slip or
overslip, I meant observations], facts, theories, and models...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LLOYD KLINEDINST
BARBARA A. BOLLMANN
10 DOVER LANE
VILLA RIDGE, MO 63089-2001
Voice: (314) 451-2988 - FAX: (314) 451-2988
email: lloydk@icon-stl.net
barbarab@postnet.com
website: http://www.icon-stl.net/~lloydk