[from Gary Cziko 920325.1720]
Jeff Dooley (920323.1100) says:
Finally, a footnote on different ways of "seeing" the world:
The two paradigms of S-R, open-loop, etc, and PCT, closed
loop, etc. seem incommensurable in a Kuhnian sense. Workers
in the different traditions really do seem to think, speak,
operate in, or at least "see," different worlds. This could
be serious, since theoretical development, experimental
design, and other activities influencing the direction of
science are informed, one could say, as a function of which
world one belonged to. Could incommensurability in this
sense help explain the apparent fact that S-R types and
PCTers seem to just talk past one another?
You may call it incommensurability, but perhaps it can be understood as
controlling for two different types of perception--one which sees one-way,
cause-effect relationships accounting for behavior which may LOOK purposive
(but isn't), and the other which sees closed-loop relatioships accounting for
behavior which IS purposeful. Each camp resists disturbances to its view,
until too much error remains and reorganization takes place.
In these types of paradigm shifts, I find it intriguing to consider the
direction of movement. I once had a very S-R perspective on behavior but I can
now see all kinds of problems with it and can't see how I would ever return to
it. I'm sure there must be others on CSGnet like this. But are there any
individuals who ever really understood PCT and then defected for S-R or other
incompatible viewpoints? If not, this would lead me to suspect that the PCT is
indeed an improvement in that it accounts for apparently S-R phenomena as well
as phenomena that S-R cannot explain.
But in the history of science, does the direction of movement of individuals
correlate with the eventual widespread acceptance of new theories and
paradigms? If there are people moving form theory A to theory B but not the
converse does this mean that theory B eventually replaces theory B? Perhaps
Dennis Delprato can fill us in here. We haven't heard from him in a while. In
the meantime perhaps Bill Powers can let us know if he knows of anyone who had
a good understanding of PCT who nonetheless abandoned it.
···
===========================================================
Bill Powers (920324.1100) in his excellent response to Randy Beer said:
So this kind of system [open loop]
can work only in an unreal or protected environment in which such
disturbances can't happen -- or else if the variable is so tightly
coupled to the plant's output that it can't vary from the state fixed by
that output even when disturbances are present.
Could you explain to me what "so tightly coupled" means? You seem to contrast
it with a situation where disturbances can't happen, so it seems you mean
something more than just that the disturbances are too weak to have an
effect.--Gary