[From Rick Marken (930329.1500)]
CHUCK TUCKER (930329-2) --
Yes, doing this science stuff is tough
Not really. But understanding it can be quite painful, apparently.
You are the one who made the claim and said "chapter and verse"
(remember that phrase) that your study supported the claim.
I presume you are referring to the claim that "there is no infor-
mation about the disturbance in perception"? It would help if we
could agree on what we mean by that claim. If you insist that the
claim means "a person can't tell that a disturbance is acting in
a compensatory tracking task" then you are correct; not only does
the study not support that claim, it's not even relevant to it. [Why
would I even do the repetition of tracking with the same disturbance
and measure the correlation between inputs if all I wanted to show was
that people don't know that a distrubance is present? Did that
question ever occur to you while reading the reserach report? If
you really thought I was trying to see if people could detect the
presence of the disturbance, why wouldn't it occur to you that the
logic of the experiment is not relevant to that question.] If, however,
the statement means "it is not possible to reconstruct the disturbance
given the perceptual input in a tracking task" then your criticisms of
my experiment are not germain and the results of the experiment do
provide strong evidence that there is, indeed, no information about the
disturbance in the perceptual input.
I would be willing to review your research proposal BEFORE you do the
study so we don't get into the problems having me to tell your after
it is done that you made some errors which made it impossible for you
to support your claims.
Thanks for the non-arrogant offer.
Since there are so many errors in my study, can I take it, then,
that you don't buy my claim that there is no information about
the disturbance in the perceptual input to a control system?
I acknowledge that there is information THAT there is a disturbance
in that input; no experiment was ever needed to test that. I mean, do
you understand and reject my claim that "it is not possible to
reconstruct the disturbance given the perceptual input in a
tracking task"?
Just curious
Rick