engovern

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
1

[From: Bruce Nevin (Thu 950316 14:20:21)]

( Bill Leach 950315.18:39 EST(EDT) ) --

since there is a complete
science and engineering discipline that already use most of our terms
properly, it seem to me that it is an error to change.

What are you doing here? What do you want to accomplish by it?
Is what you're doing accomplishing what you want to accomplish?

I personally have no complaint about using "control" with a specialized
definition within PCT discourse. But I spend very little time trying to
teach or communicate PCT to others, and that seems to be the big
rubber-to-road interface for this particular issue.

If we were really 'successful' I can just see it now:

"How to govern children; a ten step guide."

"Governing the workforce" by I. B. Smart

"Effective use of rewards to govern your staff"

ad nausum

Any word in common usage will be misused, from our perspective. Bill
Powers dissected the problem I think quite nicely. Either face the
prospect of trying to convince the majority of people again and again
that "control" doesn't mean what they know it to mean, or come up with a
new term. That's what technical terms are for. When people find them
useful and use them they come into more and more common usage.

Since you don't agree with Bill Powers' request to come up with a new
term, it isn't surprising that you stopped reading in the middle, and I
don't think that you will be interested in looking back and finding out
the term that I actually did propose. (It wasn't "govern".) But thanks
for the comments. I agree.

    Bruce

2

<[Bill Leach 950316.20:58 EST(EDT)]

[Bruce Nevin (Thu 950316 14:20:21)]

I Bill had originally started with terms that did not have the precise
definitions required for work such as PCT but used 'common' terms then I
would agree that we should be looking elsewhere. However, the case is
that with the appropriate (I think) incorporation of the term perception
in place of feedback or input (and allowing the use of feedback in its'
best control theory fashion) we have available to us a rather solid
science for the logical basis of PCT work.

If you invent "new" terms, at some point (actually immediately) the new
terms will be related to the old terms and we will soon loose the battle
again but will be worse off since we will not easily be able to say
something like "Control means exactly the same thing that Control System
Theory means in the use of the term!"

I personally have no complaint about using "control" with a ...

Good, neither do I but I don't really believe that making a change would
serve any useful purpose and indeed would just add to the confusion.

I used govern instead of entrain because your own examples used govern
and derivatives.

-bill