[From: Bruce Nevin (Fri 930827 13:03:02 EDT)]
( Bill Powers (930827.0745 MDT) ) --
I think what needs to be done
is not to prove that there IS a control-system organization, but
to try to prove that there is NOT such an organization. If one
decides in advance what sort of system is present and then tries
to prove that it is there, one may well succeed -- but
spuriously. We are too good at seizing on interpretations that
prove what we already believe, and ignoring counter-evidence.
That, after all, is a control process!
This is an important methodological point that deserves emphasis.
1. Propose hypothesis.
2. Attempt to prove negative of hypothesis.
3. If hypothesis is not disproven, it stands, but still subject to
falsification.
Corollary: An hypothesis that cannot in principle be falsified is
inappropriate for science.
Corollary: Science can never conclusively prove anything. It can only
disprove one thing or another. (Drives fundamentalists and conservatives
of every stripe batty. Where's the authority in that?!)
Falsificationism is somewhat embattled, but still I think generally
accepted.
Bruce
bn@bbn.com