Fowler; Locke

[from Gary Cziko 930526.2100 UTC]

Rick Marken asked that I post Carol Folwer's response to the commments on
Fowler and Turvey made by Bill Powers at the end of April. So here it is
along with the beginning of another note sent by me to Edwin A.
Locke.--Gary

P.S. Bill has given me permission to send any of his comments to anyone. I
will not do this with other posts to CSGnet unless their author's give me
permission to do so.

···

============================================================
Hi Guys (direct):

Here is the feedback from Carol Fowler.

I wonder if the telegraphic style of the second clause (note omission of
"the" before "discussion") indicates a state of high intrinsic error brough
on by Bill's disturbances or just general annoyance (Avery?).--Gary

Date 5/25/93
Subject RE>Powers's Comments

From Carol Fowler

To VENUS::IN%"g-cziko@uiuc.edu"

        Reply to: RE>Powers's Comments
I did receive the earlier comments; I'm not interested in joining discussion.

Professor Edwin A. Locke
University of Maryland

Dear Professor Locke :

My name is Gary Cziko and am the coordinator of the Control Systems Groups
Network (CSGnet) an electronic forum which links together about 130
individuals worldwide who are interested in the application of control
system/cybernetic theory to the behavioral, social and robotic sciences.

Recently, William T. Powers, a frequent contributor to CSGnet, made some
comments on extracts of your 1990 book with Gary P. Lantham that were
posted by Greg Williams, another CSGnet subscriber.

Although Powers did not address his note directly to you, he has given me
his permission to forward any of his comments to anyone who I feel might be
interested in them. Since I see my role of CSGnet coordinator as one of
facilitating and stimulating discussion of such matters and reaching out to
others not on CSGnet, I have appended most of his note below for your
information. Since I could not find Professor Lantham's e-mail address, I
hope that you will find Powers's comments of sufficient interest to merit
forwarding them to your colleague.

Powers's e-mail address is POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU and the address
of CSGnet is CSG-L@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU. CSGnet is also on Usenet (NetNews) as
BIT.LISTSERV.CSG-L. I would happy to send you more information about
CSGnet if you wished to know more about our network.

I look forward to your participation in what could be a very interesting
exchange of ideas and viewpoints.

Yours truly, Gary Cziko

[From Bill Powers (930526.0830 MDT)]

RE: Locke and Latham quotes provided by Greg Williams.

"As the influence of behaviorism has declined, a neo-behaviorist

theory is emerging to take its place. It is called control
theory..."

Control theory was first formally applied to behavior in 1948;
the present version called PCT started in 1953. This was at the
height of the influence of behaviorism. What is emerging is a
belated and dim awareness by some psychologists that control
theory as an approach to behavior has been in existence for over
40 years. . . . etc.

From Tom Bourbon (930526.1703)

[from Gary Cziko 930526.2100 UTC]

Rick Marken asked that I post Carol Folwer's response to the commments on
Fowler and Turvey made by Bill Powers at the end of April. So here it is
along with the beginning of another note sent by me to Edwin A.
Locke.--Gary

P.S. Bill has given me permission to send any of his comments to anyone. I
will not do this with other posts to CSGnet unless their author's give me
permission to do so.

Hi Guys (direct):

Here is the feedback from Carol Fowler.

I wonder if the telegraphic style of the second clause (note omission of
"the" before "discussion") indicates a state of high intrinsic error brough
on by Bill's disturbances or just general annoyance (Avery?).--Gary

Date 5/25/93
Subject RE>Powers's Comments

From Carol Fowler

To VENUS::IN%"g-cziko@uiuc.edu"

       Reply to: RE>Powers's Comments
I did receive the earlier comments; I'm not interested in joining discussion.

Gary,

Thanks, for making the overture to Fowler, and for posting that wonderful
reply. Isn't the scientific life simply grand!?

This net is an excellent place for lively discussion and debate. To repeat
and slightly rephrase my earlier comment, we should pseudoscientists should
babble on and leave the REAL scholars to their ignorant bliss.

Until later,
  Tom Bourbon

Leave them to their ignorant bliss.