In your face

[from Jeff Vancouver 980407.1610 EST]

[From Rick Marken (980407.1230)]

Me:

Was Galileo taking an "in your face" approach when he described
the difference between the geo- and helio-centric models of the
solar system?

Bruce Gregory (980407.1512 EDT) --

I think the church might have thought so. At least enough to
threaten Galileo with the Inquisition. (Sounds a bit like
CSGnet, no?)

Yes. A very good point. A disturbance feels like someone is being
"in your face". Galileo could have said "I think the earth moves
around the sun" as gently and politely as he could and he still
would have been perceived as being in the Church's face.

Probably true. Were I Galileo, I would have been arguing that God's
creation is more imaginative than we thought. That we are only beginning
to see the true wisdom of his ways...

Of course, Galileo may have tried this approach to no avail. However, it
seems I remember reading that he did not. That is was an "in your face"
kind of guy. (I am no scholar on Galileo, so I could well be wrong)

But regardless, comparing the Church with the scientific community is only
an analogy. We all know how you feel about analogies. Lets deal with facts.

Sincerely,

Jeff

[From Rick Marken (980407.1230)]

Me:

Was Galileo taking an "in your face" approach when he described
the difference between the geo- and helio-centric models of the
solar system?

Bruce Gregory (980407.1512 EDT) --

I think the church might have thought so. At least enough to
threaten Galileo with the Inquisition. (Sounds a bit like
CSGnet, no?)

Yes. A very good point. A disturbance feels like someone is being
"in your face". Galileo could have said "I think the earth moves
around the sun" as gently and politely as he could and he still
would have been perceived as being in the Church's face. The
Copernican model was just a huge disturbance because the Church
wanted people to believe that the earth is the stationary center
of the universe; it was a foundation of the Church's dogma and
authority. The PCT model is in exactly the same position with
respect to the current "church of life science" as the Copernican
model was with respect to the Catholic church. It is important to
the "church of life science" that behavior be caused (by perception,
reinforcement, internal cognitive processes or whatever); the life
sciences are built on this foundation. So no matter how you say
"behavior is not caused; it is the control of perception" life
scientists are going to feel like you are "in their face".

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[from Jeff Vancouver 980407.1536 EST]

[From Rick Marken (980407.1345)]

Jeff Vancouver (980407.1610 EST) --

We all know how you feel about analogies. Lets deal with facts.

OK. The fact is that, like those of Bruce Abbott, your self-avowed
efforts on behalf of PCT are completely invisible to me. There is
nothing in your writings (including your replies to Mary and me) or
your research that gives me the slightest hint that you are working
on or for PCT (except that you use the name "PCT" occasionally). You
never discuss _control_, _controlled variables_ or _tests_ to
determine _controlled variables_ and you give no indication that
you plan to discuss these concepts in your paper.

I see no PC in your discussion of PCT; only T.

That is not a fact, it is your opinion. I will see about adding more of
your vocabulary (and explain why you think that vocabulary is so
important). But while we are on the topic of opinions. Your post seems
clearly "in my face."

Sincerely,

Jeff

[From Rick Marken (980407.1345)]

Jeff Vancouver (980407.1610 EST) --

We all know how you feel about analogies. Lets deal with facts.

OK. The fact is that, like those of Bruce Abbott, your self-avowed
efforts on behalf of PCT are completely invisible to me. There is
nothing in your writings (including your replies to Mary and me) or
your research that gives me the slightest hint that you are working
on or for PCT (except that you use the name "PCT" occasionally). You
never discuss _control_, _controlled variables_ or _tests_ to
determine _controlled variables_ and you give no indication that
you plan to discuss these concepts in your paper.

I see no PC in your discussion of PCT; only T.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken