In support of Bruce Abbott

<[Bill Leach 951012.01:54 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

NET

Musing some more concerning the recent exchanges between Bill P. and
Bruce A. ...

As I see it, both Bruce and Bill are "right."

There is will probably always be a need for "knowledge" based upon
research into how beings behave (output) under certain circumstances.
There will probably always be an need in the business world for such
information (67% of the people surveyed prefer "classic coke").

For some time to come things like 41% of the people treated with "xyz"
experience a cure to "asdf" disease without undesired side effects, 22%
experience the cure but have undesired side effects and 14% do not
respond vs 28%/35%/13% for "uvw" and 18%/14%/33% for "rst", will be
useful for medical people in deciding what order to consider initially
for treatment. The same would be true for clinical psychology.

Even in the absence of recognition of the presents of control system
behaviour, empirical results can lead to valid recipe knowledge.

OTOH, Bill is right in that 1) a serious effort to conduct basic PCT
research is the single most important thing that the behavioural sciences
could possibly do at this time and 2) Attempting to "view" all research
work from as much of a PCT viewpoint as possible would help greatly.
Existing research would benefit from producing analysis results that made
only realistic claims concerning "what is thought to be going on" as well
as more reasonable claims as to how "generalized" the conclusion could
reasonably be taken to apply. New research would benefit from at least
the recognition that many factors normally ignored that could be included
will be included in the data collection process not too mention what the
effect of assuming a control system view might have upon the experimental
techniques. The benefit to behavioural science in general would even
ensure where for whatever reasons the original objective was maintained.

-bill