[Bruce Nevin 2017.0315.2156 ET]
I appreciated reading your review, Fred.
I was taken aback when in your review you refer to PCT as a metatheory.
The term metatheory was coined in the field of logic. An illustrative quote from logician Rudolf Carnap is given with Merriam Webster’s definition: “if we investigate, analyze, and describe a language L1 the sum total of what can be known about L1 and said inn L2 may be called the metatheory of L1”. L1 is the language that is used within the theory, e.g. the language of astrophysics, or the language (at its best!) of PCT. L2 has more restricted vocabulary and sentence types, those that are sufficient for talking about the theory that is expressed using L1.
Almost immediately, the term metatheory was extended to philosophy of science. A typical definition in that vein: “a theory concerned with the investigation, analysis, or description of theory itself” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Even less precisely, a “philosophical discussion of the foundations , structure, or results of some theory” (Collins English Dictionary).Â
In the social sciences, where it seems that every proposal comes with its own theory (see Steven E. Wallis “Toward a science of metatheory” [sic!] http://www.integral-review.org/documents/old/Wallis,Toward-a-Science-of-Metatheory,Vol.6,No.3.pdf), we get a very loose definition:Â
“a broad perspective that overarches two, or more, theories. [For example] positivism, ppost-positivism, hermeneutics, …”
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology
In other words, metatheory in a strict sense is the system of terms, definitions, and relations that define a theory, but in the social sciences (which includes what philosophy of science often becomes) metatheory is a set of methods for evaluating alternative theories. A taxonomy from this philosophical perspective is at http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory.html
This latter seems to be what you mean when you refer to PCT as a metatheory. I suppose this is a politic way of putting it. For if two theories have the same metatheory, they are not different theories at all, they are at best notational variants of one theory.
In my view (and I think it is shared), PCT is a theory, and these other views are poorly informed attempts at theory-making. PCT does not evaluate such views relative to each other pairwise to decide which of them is superior, which is the evaluative sense of metatheory. Nor will such views be reconciled and merged into PCT by talking about them using the language of PCT, a function inconsistent with any definition of metatheory.Â
Something like this more diplomatic strategy is (it seems to me) what Warren and colleagues are having some success with by framing MoL under a Cognitive Therapy umbrella. It’s been a good way to get funding, and a good cover story for getting the word out.
Cognitive psychology is an umbrella with a lot of mutually inconsistent ‘theories’ under it. I don’t know what others’ experience is, but when I suggest that Cog Psych still retains essential features of behaviorism I no longer have a hearing. I’m thinking of presenting it as a form of cognitive psychology that has the peculiar merit of working.
···
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Fred Good fredgood66@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry! Here is the attachment. Fred
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.14.1055 ET)]
Â
Fred Good:
Â
No attachment; no link.
Â
Fred Nickols
Â
From: Fred Good [mailto:fredgood66@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Free Review Copies of “Your Behavior” Available
Â
Hi Fred.Â
Here’s a review of Richard Phau’s book which I wrote FYI. Please feel free to use any part of it in any way if it helps further the effort.
Best,
Â
Fred Good
Â
On Mo
n, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
Fred Nickols
922 Country Club Dr
Howard, OH 43028
Â
I will write a review.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 13, 2017, at 5:27 PM, richardpfau4153@aol.com wrote:
Â
From [Richard Pfau (2017.03.13 17:25 EST)]
Copies of the book * Your Behavior: Understanding and Changing the Things You D
o* are available to interested persons willing to:
(1) write and submit a book review about it to a journal, magazine, or newspaper.
       or
(2) seriously consider using it as a textbook for a course on human behavior.
As you may know, the book highlights PCT and is aimed at taking readers past the outdated thinking that dominates psychology today.   In particular, readers are helped to (1) understand why they behave as they do, (2) understand why other people behave as they do, and (3) change their behavior if they really want to.Â
For more information, you might go to Amazon.com and have a l ook at “Your Behavior by Pfau” i ncluding the reference to PCT at the end of my author’s biography.
If you are s
eriously interested in writing a book review or possibly using *Your Behavior *as a textbook, please send me your postal mailing address and I will send you a copy. (A first batch just arrived today–hot off the press).
Â