FW: Facts and Theories (was Understanding control of behavior)

I didn’t say that Bill explained his choice of Title in my way. I just answered your question :

NM :

How subjective is that title?

HB :

You didn’t mention any need for Bill’s axplanation of Title. I understand that you want any oppinion on that. It’s not just memory that is funny. It’s also control of perception J. Hardly predictable and different….

Best,

Boris

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 6:15 PM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Subject: Re: Facts and Theories (was Understanding control of behavior)

That’s not how I remember Bill explaining his choice of title to me! But memory is a funny thing!

Warren

On 28 Nov 2014, at 13:55, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Hi Warren,

Moël

Title »The Fact of Control« I beleive is subjective as much beleivers it has, as any other »fact«.

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 6:17 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Facts and Theories (was Understanding control of behavior)

How about this:

“Living Control Systems III: The Fact of Control”

How subjective is that title?

Warren

On 28 Nov 2014, at 04:31, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.11.27.23.04]

On 2014/11/27 7:12 PM, Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.11.27.1610)]

Martin Taylor (2014.11.27.17.50)

MT: This is refreshing! I don’t think I’ve heard such a passionate defence of naive realism since my undergraduate days. It makes me feel young again. For the last 60 years, almost everyone I have had any dealings with on the issue has accepted that all “facts” depend on some kind of theory.

RM: But knowing that you believe that facts depend on theory helps me understand why you have so little interest in doing empirical research.

Yes, I suppose that is why I put so much effort last year into making a generalized tracking program to test a few theoretical notions…Ooops. I shouldn’t have said that!

Interesting that you omitted the qualifying sentence in your quote.

After all, why do empirical tests when the results of those tests depend on the current theory you hold? The theory you hold determines what the results of the tests will look like. So I would imagine that, given your perspective, the first thing to do is to get the right theory and then do the tests (although the tests seem rather superfluous since they will come out the way your theory says they will).

I guess my exaggeration leads to yours in a classic conflict escalation. Sorry about that.

But that doesn’t alter the FACT that if you believe the THEORY of perceptual control to be worth investigating and discussing, you really ought to play by its rules, among which are the rules of control. One rule of control, whether biological or engineering, is that the controlled variable is the one that is directly compared with a reference value. Any other place in a control loop where something is visibly stabilized, the stabilization is due to the stabilization of the variable that is compared with a reference value.

I know politicians think they can replace laws of nature by their own laws (e.g. pi = 22/7 in, I think, Kentucky), but in a scientific discourse, one really shouldn’t do that.

Now, if you wanted to use the publicly visible stabilization of an environmental variable (the FACT you keep harping on) as evidence that there is a controlled variable somewhere and that variable is closely linked to the stabilized environmental variable (in the manner of the “Test for the Controlled Variable”), I would applaud. But recently you haven’t been doing that.

If you wanted to use that apparent stabilization of something in the environment as evidence that the environmental variable is actually being controlled (as you now seem to be doing), I would ask – and do ask – where is the reference value in the environment to which its current value is continually being compared, and what is the mechanism in the environment for making that comparison?

I suppose also, though this isn’t a scientific point but an emotional one, that if you wanted to honour Bill Powers in a discussion group devoted to discussing his theory, you would be well advised to start with the title of his main book “Behaviour: the control of PERCEPTION”, and stop trying to change the theory into “Behaviour: the control of things in the environment”.

Martin