[Martin Taylor 2018.08.22.14.56]
Looking back over the two years that this has been going on, it has
become ever more clear that Rick has an internal conflict between
wanting others to perceive him to be a scientist and wanting others
to perceive him as infallible. Since these are inherently as easy to
achieve simultaneously as riding a bike while driving a car, he had
to choose, and chose to be perceived as infallible, ensuring that he
is not perceived to be a scientist, who is a person that necessarily
sometimes gets things wrong if s/he is ever to discover anything
new. In the curvature discussion, for example, I think it was properly
scientific that Rick noticed the use of an expression for velocity
in terms of x and y coordinates in two different expressions, and
followed the consequences from that commonality. That was
scientific. What was not scientific was that when the error in
making that equation was pointed out (within hours of his original
suggestion on CSGnet), he persisted (and even now persists) in
asserting that it was correct, never addressing the actual
criticism.
If he was not controlling for being perceived to be correct, rather
than as being a scientist, why else, for example, in his published
response to my rebuttal of his curvature paper did he rebut eight
critiques he invented out of thin air while falsely attributing
those critiques to me? Later, he said that he rebutted them as he
understood them to be mine, but I find that hard to believe, given
that the issues had already been hashed over for a year when he
invented his own critiques to publish. Why, in two years, has he
never once answered a direct question I have asked on the topic,
instead always diverting the discussion to a different topic or
answering a question he invented to replace the one asked? This thread started because he said my criticisms were based on
“bogus mathematics”. In several messages I asked repeatedly what was
bogus about my mathematics, but never was able to find out because
he always talked about something else even when I asked about
specific steps in the analysis.
The Method of Levels as a therapy depends on the sufferer going up
to a higher level, but if the conflict is at the level of self-image
as seen by others, what higher level is available for resolution of
the internal conflict? If being seen to have made a mistake is
intolerable, but being seen to be a bogus scientist is OK, then
which would you choose? Rick’s choice is clear. And now, Rick
objects even to showing by paraphrasing that he might actually
understand a simple observation Bruce has made.
If this were just a private matter, it would be most reasonable
simply to ignore Rick’s postings, as I have done from time to time,
including for the last couple of weeks. But as Bruce says, his
notions get wider airings in places where people might be inclined
to take what Rick says as representing PCT as a theory, because he
can refer to all his publications. Then the question becomes
serious, because the result is that others may see the words
“Perceptual Control Theory” and turn away without actually
investigating the theory and its implications, since in their view
its prime public advocate is so clearly not a scientist but a
fantasist who opposes normal mathematics and physics, but never
defines his own versions in ways that can be investigated in their
own right…
Martin
···
[From Bruce Abbott (2018.08.22.1125 EDT)]
Â
[Rick Marken2018-08-21_15:35:23]
Â
...RM: I think it's pretty clear that no one wants to dothis; they want to study the power law. So go ahead. Do the
research, publish it and I’ll see what I think. Maybe you
are all geniuses and I’m just a self- deluded moron.
Â
BA:Well, self-deluded for sure. You won’t even try to
understand where your error lies. You act as if you
think everyone else is a moron and you are the
genius – the only one who can see that the empeeror
has no clothes.
Â
RM: Then whynot just ignore me and do your power law studies and
show what’s really going on. And best of all, give your
PCT explanation of the power law (if there is one) so
you can get PCT out there for the public. You certainly
don’t want me to be the only person publishing PCT
stuff, do you?
Â
I’d love to ignore you on thismatter. Unfortunately you insist on repeatedly
promoting your faulty analysis and refuse to engage your
critics’ multiple demonstrations of its falsehood. At
this point you’ve been reduced to claiming offense at
being asked merely to restate my argument against your
conclusion. That’s the clearest sign that you have no
defense against it.
Â
Bruce