[From Hank Folson 960916]
With Bruce Abbott's introduction of Simon, and Hans Blom's comments about
the state of PCT, plus my perception that in several threads parties on
both sides do not seem to be getting much satisfaction out of the
discourse, I want to talk about the difference between invention and
discovery, as they refer to PCT.
With a PCT bias, I see invention defined as the combining of different
pieces of information in our imagination in a novel way to produce a new
idea (like a theory of human behavior) or a new object (like a better
mouse trap.)
A discovery occurs when something that already exists in nature is finally
perceived by someone either by accident (e.g. Columbus & the Americas) or
intentionally (e.g. Newton's Laws of Motion, or the basic structure of all
living organisms).
What is PCT? Invention or discovery? My position is that any theory or
concept about the nature of living organisms must start out as an idea in
someone's imagination. Thus it is initially an invention. Once the idea,
theory, invention has been tested, or proof of the existence of what the
invention claims is found in organisms, the invention now becomes a
discovery.
So what does this have to do with PCT? If PCT is just an invention, we
have many options. An invention only has to be new or different -
regardless of whether it is valid or useful. Thus we can add to or
subtract from the ideas at will, if PCT is just an invention. But if PCT
is a discovery, as I personally believe, then our options are severely
limited. There is no point to adding our personal ideas to the discovery
unless they are compatible with the discovery, or extend the discovery. In
either case, the added ideas eventually must be brought from invention to
discovery in nature. We can (and should) also have personal ideas that
would disprove the theory. These ideas must also be taken from invention
to discovery. In this case, the discovery would be that PCT is wrong.
Please correct me, Hans, but your position is that PCT, and all other
theories of living organisms, are in the invention stage.
Non-PCT researchers and their work are often brought up on CSGnet. Usually
the distinction between invention and discovery is ignored. Their work is
giving standing it does not merit, because it is in the invention stage,
not the discovery stage.
Bruce Abbott, I believe you are looking at inventions (e.g., some of
Simon's thoughts), and treating them as discoveries. The problem I have
with the Simon discussion goes farther: The discussion is based only on
_your_ perception of Simon's statements. Thus disagreement is inevitable,
as others have _their_ perceptions of Simon's statements. You are all
wasting your time discussing Simon in this way, because until you
communicate with Simon, there is no way to go from invention to discovery.
I do want to make clear that Simon's or anyone else's statements can be
used as a starting point for discussion. Any statement, whether classed as
invention or discovery or neither, can lead to other thoughts and
discussion which might further our knowledge of PCT, or even blow PCT
right out of the water. But it is foolish, and a waste of energy, to spend
any time on the statements themselves. Their value to us and PCT lies only
in what we do with them.
The speed and effectiveness of PCT research can be improved if we always
ask, "Is this invention or discovery?", and focus our efforts on
determining if the inventions can be developed into discoveries.
Sincerely, Hank Folson