Falsifiability of PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG2006
1

Rick,

Here is a pretty interesting tome on US Republican "Science":

Mooney, Chris (2005). The Republican war on science. New York: Basic Books. ISBN: 0-465-04675-4.

It sets the stage with Stalinist good ole boy Trofim Lysenko and includes all the wonderful personalities from Rove to Dobson, but particularly pseudoscience plants in various scientific centers. It IS an interesting read but in view of the "Scalito" vote today, terrifying for anyone in science.

I have been getting a slew of these books from my Library. Whenever I can, I also bring home titles about Osama bin Laden, the Quran, and anything else that might trigger a look-see. I just wonder, you know...

Well, of course, EVERTHING requires a court order, nothing has changed about that THAT (sez Bushie). HAH! I am listening to Franken right now about this whole mess about spying...

http://www.airamericaradio.com/stations
Los Angeles, CA - KTLK-AM 1150 AM

Martin's review of Canadian politics was very interesting, tho. I do agree with your evaluation as well.

--Bryan

2

[From Dick Robertson.2006.01.24.1417CST]

Thanks, Bry for that reference to Republican junk science. I'd been thinking somebody should out it.
Also, when I hit that airamerica url I got travelocity. Do you know what I did wrong? I would like to tune in on Franken. I just finished his TRUTH. It's great.

Best,

Dick R

3

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.24.1430 CST)]

Whoops, well let me get a better URL. And Dick, you can actually listen in Glenview to the Station with a regular AM radio right now, broadcasting from WCPT 850 Crystal Lake. The station is to the left of WLS 890 and to the right (funny idea) of a Catholic station, WCSN (Relevant Radio) 820. WCPT is a daytimer-only station, and has a combination of Air America and Democracy Radio broadcasts.

This URL works: <http://www.airamericaradio.com/&gt; (Maybe just type it in?)

Basically the program is as follows:
Air America Mornings with Rachel Maddow & Mark Riley
Springer on the Radio
Al Franken from Minnesota
Ed Schultz from Fargo ND
Randi Rhodes from NYC
Majority Report with Janeane Garofalo and Sam Seder

As the day gets longer the later shows will be accessible on WCPT.
The page on WCPT on Wikipedia is:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCPT&gt;

Great that you liked "Truth (With Jokes)" by Franken. I did too.

--Bryan

Richard Robertson wrote:

···

[From Dick Robertson.2006.01.24.1417CST]

Thanks, Bry for that reference to Republican junk science. I'd been thinking somebody should out it.
Also, when I hit that airamerica url I got travelocity. Do you know what I did wrong? I would like to tune in on Franken. I just finished his TRUTH. It's great.

Best,

Dick R

4

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.16.1230)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.15.0715) to Bjorn Simonsen (2005.12.16,13:00EUST)

Here is why according to Popper PCT is not a scientific theory;

How would I go about showing that levels DO NOT exist in our nervous system as stipulated in the theory?

How can I show that control DOES NOT exist as stipulated in the theory?

I can't, and this is what Popper meant by 'falsifiability'.

I believe that you can't. But this proves only that you are simply not qualified to comment on PCT (or science in general for that matter). I can't imagine a more basic lack of understanding of PCT (or science) than that reflected in these comments. In particular, your statement that you (and, by implication, anyone else) cannot show that control does not exist as stipulated by the theory is mind-numbingly wrong, especially coming from someone who been on CSGNet for something like 10 years.

In an earlier post you mentioned that you were interested in how imagination contributes to perception. I would have liked to discuss this topic but there is no point in discussing it with you because one has to understand the basics of PCT in order to be able to intelligently discuss these more advanced topics. Your comment above to Bjorn shows that you don't understand even the basics of PCT. I think it's way past time for you to get out of teaching mode and get into learning mode with respect to PCT.

By the way, we show that control does not exist as stipulated by the theory using the Test for the Controlled Variable.

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

5

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.12.15.1505 CST)]

Reading along with this thread, Rick's point is what I have been trying to (among other things) advice both Kenny and Marc. There are standards of the scientific method and of experimental design, not to mention the standard of the type of experimental design needed in PCT experiments such as the Test of the Controlled Variable.

Marc (and Kenny), without even High School scientific understanding (oh, I mis-spoke, the kind of understanding that OUGHT to be learned by the time a student has reached Sophomore year of High School Science Classes--not anything like Intelligent Design), any attempts to speak of scientific, theory, models, experimental design, variables, research, bias, results, conclusions and recommendations seem to be fruitless.

I have in the past advocated that either of you do the science, make a model, do an experiment, and so on.

I think we need to have a multiple-choice quiz about science and PCT...

:wink:

--B.

···

[Rick Marken (2005.12.16.1230)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.15.0715) to Bjorn Simonsen (2005.12.16,13:00EUST)

Here is why according to Popper PCT is not a scientific theory;

How would I go about showing that levels DO NOT exist in our nervous system as stipulated in the theory?

How can I show that control DOES NOT exist as stipulated in the theory?

I can't, and this is what Popper meant by 'falsifiability'.

I believe that you can't. But this proves only that you are simply not qualified to comment on PCT (or science in general for that matter). I can't imagine a more basic lack of understanding of PCT (or science) than that reflected in these comments. In particular, your statement that you (and, by implication, anyone else) cannot show that control does not exist as stipulated by the theory is mind-numbingly wrong, especially coming from someone who been on CSGNet for something like 10 years.

In an earlier post you mentioned that you were interested in how imagination contributes to perception. I would have liked to discuss this topic but there is no point in discussing it with you because one has to understand the basics of PCT in order to be able to intelligently discuss these more advanced topics. Your comment above to Bjorn shows that you don't understand even the basics of PCT. I think it's way past time for you to get out of teaching mode and get into learning mode with respect to PCT.

By the way, we show that control does not exist as stipulated by the theory using the Test for the Controlled Variable.

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

6

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.16.1706)]

In a message dated 12/16/2005 3:35:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.16.1230)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.15.0715) to Bjorn Simonsen (2005.12.16,13:00EUST)

Here is why according to Popper PCT is not a scientific theory;

How would I go about showing that levels DO NOT exist in our nervous
system as stipulated in the theory?

How can I show that control DOES NOT exist as stipulated in the
theory?

I can’t, and this is what Popper meant by ‘falsifiability’.

I believe that you can’t. But this proves only that you are simply not
qualified to comment on PCT (or science in general for that matter).

But I’m not commenting on science. I’m commenting on PCT which at this point is metaphysics.

But even with that what ‘qualifications’ does one need to comment on anything?

If you believe an idea I propose is useless you are free to ignore it. If you feel an idea I have is misplaced you can provide evidence to show why you believe it is. These are your choices. One choice you do not have is the choice to decide who should or who should not make comments about things you care about.

I can’t imagine a more basic lack of understanding of PCT (or science)
than that reflected in these comments.

Unfortunately Popper is dead so you cannot take it up with him but I would be delighted to discus the merits of falsifiability with you if you want from my perspective.

Unfortunately you don’t seem to think I am ‘qualified’ to discuss such matters so why bother?

What exactly do my comments have to do with any understanding of PCT?

In particular, your statement that you (and, by implication, anyone else) cannot >show that control does not exist as stipulated by the theory is mind-numbingly >wrong, especially coming from someone who been on CSGNet for something like >10 years.

Ok, please provide the details of a test that would show a lack of control *** as postulated by the PCT hierarchy*** . That is Rick, what kind of test could I do to show that your ‘tests’ did not show what you said they did? And I’ve been on CSGnet for about 13 years thank you.

Second, you can also provide a test that shows that the levels do exist *** as postulated by the theory***.

But these were two right off the top of my head. There is a laundry list of conjectures that are more about religion then science in PCT.

Reorganization anyone? Can I show you that this phantom process does not exist any more than I can show you that god doesn’t?

In an earlier post you mentioned that you were interested in how
imagination contributes to perception. I would have liked to discuss
this topic but there is no point in discussing it with you because one
has to understand the basics of PCT in order to be able to
intelligently discuss these more advanced topics.

What took you so long? I really had expected this attack to come from you and Bill much sooner. You disappoint me.

I know your hurting from my comments so I’ll let this all pass and I see Bryan has decided to way in as well but I’m not going to read his post because I know what it already says because he too is hurting.

Hurting because he based his whole career on a ‘science’ that does not exist and he is one pissed off individual but he is mad at the wrong guy. I’m not even a messenger in this deal because I would like to see PCT become a science.

I know that you Bryan, or any number of others don’t believe that but there is little I can do if you are unwilling to try to resolve why you feel the way you do about me.

I asked you to contact me yesterday Rick privately and you haven’t because you are not interested in discussing or resolving anything with me. You are interested in burying me and my ideas.

If I do not understand the ‘basics’ of PCT and I’m not ‘qualified’ to talk about it, why write this post? To show your vast audience that I am not worth listening to? Unlike you Rick, most people can decide for themselves what to believe and what not to believe.

I am not trying to get any one to think any one way. I am attempting to get people to think and discuss what they find interesting and useful. I present my ideas as a first step with topics that are important and relevant to me.

Your comment above to Bjorn shows that you don’t understand even the basics >of PCT.

NO, it shows I know the difference between science and metaphysics. But more importantly this post of yours shows how a controller will react when threatened with the loss of self-esteem.

It’s not pretty, but as a clinician David you might take notice of a couple of things with Rick’s post vis a vie control

  1. The defensiveness. That is, the unillustrated negative evaluations of me that makes Ricks comments undiscussable.
  1. The unilateral control Rick tries to exert by being ‘right’ and by trying to discredit me.
  1. Tells me I am ‘wrong’ and does not tell me what I would need to do to be right because he is not really interested in helping me correct something, he is only interested in making me look bad to protect (control) for something he is very tied into (PCT)

Rick, I can’t thank you enough for what you have provided to me in the last several days. Both the new insights into you as a person and PCT as well.

I think
it’s way past time for you to get out of teaching mode and get into
learning mode with respect to PCT.

Again, what took you so long? This is getting kind of old. Can’t you possibly think up a new set of defensive routines?

Where is Bill? Coming in and helping you play good cop - bad cop?

If you were so concerned about my ‘lack’ of understanding you would point out to me what I was lacking and where I might get the help I need. But you have no such concerns. Your concerns lie with protecting deeply held beliefs you think I am ‘attacking’ and I can understand why you are pouncing. I represent a threat to you and your beliefs. If you could just toss off what I was saying as garbage you would do so. But you are afraid others will think I actually make some sense, and they will, so you need to do what you need to do to protect what you need to protect.

I actually have a great deal of empathy for you, not anger. Bryan is even a sadder case.

According to Popper and his notions of falsifiability, if he is correct, would mean you have not been practicing science as you believed you had been doing. This is one major shock, and not a trivial matter.

Modeling is not science, it is modeling. That is, it is a way of expressing a set of ideas.

In attempting to correct anything (wanting to do science), the first thing you need to do is admit you have a problem. If you believe you are doing science go right ahead, my thoughts or those of Popper should have little effect on you. But apparently that is not the case because you responded like a wounded animal.

How can you think about how to do things to make it a ‘science’ when you already believe you are doing it?

I am not doing science yet but I aspire to do so. There is nothing ‘wrong’ or shameful in that. I may never accomplish that but I will try, and if not I would have had a grand time in trying.

You really should try lightening up a bit.

By the way, we show that control does not exist as stipulated by the
theory using the Test for the Controlled Variable.

So then the theory of PCT is a false theory? Ok, that still makes it a non-science, right? Or do you consider that a ‘failed scientific theory’ If so, why do you continue to make models of a false set of ideas?

Regards,

Marc

The most important knowledge that we can possibly possess is that of our own ignorance. – Anon

Seek understanding before trying to be understood. --Steve Covey

7

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.17.1740)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.16.1706)

Rick Marken (2005.12.16.1230)--

�

I can't imagine a more basic lack of understanding of PCT (or science)
than that reflected in these comments."

�
Unfortunately Popper is dead so you cannot take it up with him but I would be delighted to discus the merits of falsifiability with you if you want from my perspective.

I wasn't referring to Popper; I was referring to you. You were saying that the existence of control is not falsifiable, but it is. That's what the test for the controlled variable (TCV) is all about.

What exactly do my comments have to do with any understanding of PCT?

The TCV is at the heart of PCT. Your comments show that you don't understand the TCV. This is like learning from an algebra student that they don't know how to solve for x in the equation 4 = 5x.

�In particular, your statement that you (and, by implication, anyone else) cannot show that control does not exist as stipulated by the theory is mind-numbingly wrong, especially coming from someone who been on CSGNet for something like 10 years.

Ok, please provide the details of a test that would show a lack of control as postulated by the PCT hierarchy .

Read my most recent JEP:HPP paper. You apply a disturbance to a hypothetical controlled variable and look for _lack of effect_ of he disturbance. If the disturbance has little or no effect the variable is probably controlled; if the disturbance is fully effective, the variable is not under control; control of the variable has been falsified.

And I've been on CSGnet for about 13 years thank you.

Even more astonishing.

�Second, you can also provide a test that shows that the levels do exist as postulated by the theory.

You can't test to prove that the levels exist. What you want is a test that would falsify the existence of the levels if it came out a particular way. I have two such tests on the net; both would falsify the existence of levels if they came out a particular way. In fact, these test always come out in a way that does not falsify the existence of levels.

�But these were two right off the top of my head. There is a laundry list of conjectures that are more about religion then science in PCT.

I think you mean "conjectures that show that PCT is more about religion than science". The two conjectures you mention don't show that and I doubt that the rest of your laundry list does.

�Reorganization anyone? Can I show you that this phantom process does not exist any more than I can show you that god doesn't?

Yes, you can. Dick Robertson has done studies that had the possibility of showing that random reorganization does not exist; instead, he found evidence that random reorganization occurs when learning to solve a problem.

I know your hurting from my comments

Yes, I am. It's hard to watch while you spew your persistent (and often crudely expressed) ignorance on work of such brilliance and clarity.

I asked you to contact me yesterday Rick�privately

Really. I didn't see anything from you.

and you haven't because you are not interested in discussing or resolving anything with me. You are interested in burying me and my ideas.

No I'm not. I'm interested in teaching you PCT. There is nothing to resolve. You think you have some important ideas to contribute abut, based on all I've heard, I don't think so. I think you have to re-learn PCT from the first page of B:CP though the last page of Mind Readings. If you don't agree with this, that's fine. But there's nothing to resolve, as far as I can see. I like my PCT neat; you seem to like it in a Planter's punch with an umbrella on top.

�If I do not understand the 'basics' of PCT and I'm not 'qualified' to talk about it, why write this post? To show your vast audience that I am not worth listening to?

To show them _and_ you that you are not worth listening to.

I am not trying to get any one to think any one way.

That's fine. But I AM trying to get people to think in one particular way. I'm trying to get them to see behavior as the control of perception and to see all that that implies. That's why CSGNet was formed: to provide a forum in which to discuss, evaluate and promulgate PCT.

�I think it's way past time for you to get out of teaching mode and get into learning mode with respect to PCT.

�
Again, what took you so long? This is getting kind of old. Can't you possibly think�up a new set of defensive routines?

No. The best defense would be to turn you into an expert on PCT.

If you were so concerned about my 'lack' of understanding you would point out to me what I was lacking and where I might get the help I need.

I have responded to many of your questions but my responses are met only with derision. You show no signs of having learned anything. Because of this, I now tend to answer your questions selectively (not answering all of them) because I am answering, not for you, for the sake of others who might be interested.

Modeling is not science, it is modeling.

Modeling is one half of science. The other half involves testing predictions of the model against actual observations. My published work has always involved both these halves of science; I present a model and test its predictions against experimentally obtained observations. This is science. The models' predictions are falsifiable by observation so I have been doing just what Popper says to do: develop falsifiable propositions (models) and test them (see if they are falsified). So far, no falsifications, though in every case the actual observations _could have_ resulted in falsification of PCT.

How can you think about how to do things to make it a 'science' when you already believe you are doing it?

Easy. I just listen to people's suggestions about how to make my work "science" and see if it makes sense to me. Everything you have said about how to make my work "science" is, by my estimate, grossly wrong.

You really should try lightening up a bit.

I think that's a very good suggestion.

By the way, we show that control does not exist as stipulated by the
theory using the Test for the Controlled Variable.

So then the theory of PCT is a false theory?

No, it's falsifiable.

Ok, that still makes it a non-science, right?

If PCT were falsified, that would make PCT false, not non-science.

Regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

8

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.17.2240)]

In a message dated 12/17/2005 8:47:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.17.1740)]

Regards,

Whatever you say.

Marc