[From Rick Marken (950731.1630)]
Me:
conventional operant research is of absolutely no use to PCT.
Bill Powers (950731.1510 MDT) --
That's an overgeneralization.
Correct.
If we reject the work of others just because they don't talk of controlling
inputs and testing for control by applying disturbances and all that jazz,
we will perpetrate just as manuy injustices as we have suffered ourselves.
True. But it's not just a matter of "talking the talk". I would like to see
more studies of control of nourishment done from a control perspective.
Unfortunately, my efforts to brow beat Bruce into doing these studies were a
tad overzealous.
I have enough confidence in PCT to expect that we will either find a correct
PCT model for whatever phenomenon is being discussed, or as in this case
find a basic flaw in the experimental approach that eliminates a whole
class of research -- and explanations -- from the agenda.
Perhaps. But it would sure be nice to see some more animal research done from
a control perspective.
When you said "we have managed to discover," you were stretching a
point. Bruce made the principal discovery...
It was the imperial "we"
Your main contribution has been to try to pick fights with Bruce, to make
grossly unfair accusations based on what you imagine him to be thinking,
and to urge us all to get onto some other subject.
I didn't mean to urge us onto another subject; I meant to urge Bruce to get
on with the rat research. But I was far more successful at picking a fight;-)
Sorry, pal. You stuck your neck out.
I'm sorry too.
Me:
But I think we could have saved a lot of time and effort (and embarrassment)
if we had thrown this data into the garbage can right off the bat.
Bill:
I have absolutely no sympathy with this point of view.
Neither do I.
What I learned was that the data come first, not the assumption that
everything that looks like control is actually control. Asking researchers
how they determined which variable is under control is just a brushoff --
nobody could reasonably expect researchers from a different discipline to
have been thinking about discovering controlled variables. This doesn't mean
that they haven't discovered any. It could mean that they haven't looked at
the data from that point of view. You'll never know what they did unless you
look.
This seems fine in principle. I just think it could become difficult try to
reanalyze every piece of conventional research to see what's actually going
on. The necessary data might no longer be available; what the data actually
measures may be unclear. I am biased toward doing studies that start from a
control perspective; I just think the results of reanalyzing existing data
will not always be as clear (apparently) as the result of analyzing the
Staddon data. But don't mind me; analyze away.
PS -- have I eliminated the page breaks from my posts?
Yes, you have eliminated the page breaks. And you don't seem to be giving me
any breaks either;-)
Best
Rick
