Is PCT falsifiable?

[From Brian D'Agostino 960102.0415 Eastern Standard Time]

I am confused by apparently contradictory understandings of PCT
recently expressed on CSGnet. In his posting "Where We Stand,"
Bill Powers indicated that PCT's fate will be decided by
experiment, specifically rat bar-pressing data designed to test the
competing claims of PCT and behaviorism. Pending the outcome of
this experiment, Powers the scientist proclaimed that it's "back to
the drawing board" and that we will have to "let the chips fall."
When I read this, I was really impressed. Wow, I thought, deep
down inside Bill _really_ believes in science.

Then I read Rick Marken's and the Forsell's New Years Resolution
posts, and Bill's reply. On the basis of the narrow empirical
foundation of cursor tracking data, Rick proclaims that PCT is a
universal science _a priori_ capable of explaining all perceptual
phenomena whatsoever. Dag and Christine post a philosophical piece
by Bill which asserts the claims of PCT independently of any
specific empirical research that could test it. And Powers the
priest gives his blessing. Will the _real_ Bill Powers please
stand up.

[From Bill Powers (960102.1330 MST)]

Brian D'Agostino (960102.0415 EST) --

     Bill Powers indicated that PCT's fate will be decided by
     experiment, specifically rat bar-pressing data designed to test the
     competing claims of PCT and behaviorism.

I hardly think that PCT's fate will be decided by the outcome of one
experiment with rats doing bar-pressing. What we will find out is
whether the rats are controlling anything we can identify in this
experiment.

     Pending the outcome of this experiment, Powers the scientist
     proclaimed that it's "back to the drawing board" and that we will
     have to "let the chips fall." When I read this, I was really
     impressed. Wow, I thought, deep down inside Bill _really_ believes
     in science.

I'm fairly confident that doing the experiment will show us what, if
anything, is under control by the rats in this sort of experiment. If
nothing is, then so be it. You're right: I do believe in this approach
to studying nature. My reason, however, is not to impress people; it is
simply that I haven't seen any other approach that produces knowledge
that I trust. I did not write what I wrote in order to be proclaimed a
Good Boy.

     Then I read Rick Marken's and the Forsell's New Years Resolution
     posts, and Bill's reply. On the basis of the narrow empirical
     foundation of cursor tracking data, Rick proclaims that PCT is a
     universal science _a priori_ capable of explaining all perceptual
     phenomena whatsoever. Dag and Christine post a philosophical piece
     by Bill which asserts the claims of PCT independently of any
     specific empirical research that could test it. And Powers the
     priest gives his blessing. Will the _real_ Bill Powers please
     stand up.

You seem to have a beef with Marken and the Forssells: take it up with
them. As to my philosophical piece, it was written, I believe, in 1989,
and was certainly not independent of any specific empirical research:
1989 was the 36th year of my interest in control theory and my
continuing efforts to find ways to obtain empirical data about control
phenomena.

Will you please lay off that personal horseshit about Powers the priest?
I presume you are not a jealous and spiteful person; why make yourself
appear that way? By blaming me for what others say, and by assuming that
what they say is said only with my blessing, you yourself are trying to
put me in the position of priest, guru, etc.. If you want to put me on a
pedestal, then your disappointment when I turn out to stand on the
ground like everyone else is your problem, not mine. I find your mockery
distasteful.

···

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Powers