from [ Marc Abrams (990703.2201) ]
I did not get this post yesterday as well as a post from Bill. Maybe the
server was down?
Update :-). I just got this post and Bill's from yesterday.
[From Rick Marken (970703.0840)]
I posted this yesterday but it didn't make it to CSGNet. In
case the problem was on my end I'm posting it again. I hope
this doesn't end up being a repeat.
---
[From Rick Marken (990702.1400)]
I think the key is understanding the difference between
"right/wrong" and "win/lose". Galileo was right; Aristotle was
wrong. The Church won (but was still wrong); Galileo lost
(but was still right). Right/wrong is decided by data and
models; win/lose is decided by force. I think we should
have "right/wrong" discussions on CSGNet and stop the
"win/lose" ones.
_Scientific_ right/wrong arguments are what this list should be about. But
there are in my opinion, effective and ineffective ways of doing this. If we
restrict our arguments on this list purely to models and data, as Bruce
Nevin suggests, then I completely agree with you. If we allow ourselves to
move away from the data/experimentation mode of scientific inquiry
modeling )then we need some other rules to keep the discourse "fair" and in
my mind useful.
Me:
> I think we all succumb to making less than tactful statements
> when we are arguing about ideas. After all, we are in conflict.
Marc:
> The real goal here is to find out _what_ your in conflict about.
I was referring to _interpersonal_ conflict. I think it's usually
pretty obvious what these conflicts are about.
So was I. That's the reason why assumptions should be checked ( tested ) Too
many of them (i.e. our assumptions ) turn out to be either wrong or slightly
askew. It really doesn't take much.
> These "verbal battles" serve no purpose for learning, because
> these battles are not about learning. They are about _IMAGINED_
> victories and defeats.
I agree that these verbal battles can be about imagined victories
and defeats, and this is unfortunate. But I think these battles
can serve the purpose of learning. For example, we just had a
battle over whether the action of a control system depends on
error. You and Bruce Gregory said "no error, no action". I said
"zero error can cause action in an integral controller". This
turned into an unnecessary win/lose battle. It turned out we
were all wrong; Bill explained that zero error _causes_ no action
but there can be action when there is no error. I don't feel like
I won or lost anything in this discussion; I feel like I learned.
What I learned was that you can't tell whether or not a control
system is experiencing error simply by looking to see whether or
not it is acting.
When I say "imagined", thats exactly what I meant. Not every argument on
this list is about "imagined" "right/wrongs". Bill's post was an example of
someone pointing out a mistake and then explaining _his_ logic and reasoning
behind it. If there was anything there I disagreed with I could have pointed
directly to the reasoning and logic I didn't understand or disagreed with
and inquired about it.
Beginning of selective framing
Marc:
> If you are sincere about what you just said, then, in the
> future, you will _show_ examples of this kind so I can _see_
> and hopefully understand and learn from them.
Rick
Why? It doesn't bother me that much. And I'm not interested in
trying to turn you (or anyone else) into a non-offensive poster
(I don't really think it's possible for anyone to be reliably
non-offensive all the time to all people, anyway).
Marc:
> How do I know you are not a) misinterpreting something I
> said or b) imagining it.
Rick:
That will always be a problem in interpersonal interactions.
I don't think there is any solution except the one proposed
by Bill Powers (990702.0923 MDT):
This is a _beautiful_ example of your _selective_ attention to something and
not to others, and the reason why I said what I did about showing the data
and reflecting on it. You took this from:
from [ Marc Abrams (990702.1314) ]
If you are sincere about what you just said, then, in the future, you will
_show_ examples of this kind so I can _see_ and hopefully understand and
learn from them. How do I know you are not a) misinterpreting something I
said or b) imagining it. Back up your claims with data that will help us
_both_ learn. This is _not_ about shoving something under somebodies nose
and saying "Gotcha". I will try my damnest to do the same.
What happened to the "Back up your claims with data that will help us
_both_ learn. This is _not_ about shoving something under somebodies nose
and saying "Gotcha". I will try my damnest to do the same."
I guess it just was not worth commenting on, huh?
Rick, this is getting to be tiresome for me. You're don't seem to be willing
to reflect on what _others_ deem important nor do you seem open to possibly
trying new ways to communicate.
If my two assumptions are accurate, this thread is history 
Btw, that wasn't an original Bill comment Bill Powers (990702.0923 MDT): It
was from Bruce Gregory. Bill was simply commenting on it.
If that is truely the way you feel, you should be posting _very_ rarely on
this net 
> In any relationship, it's not what the other person does that's
> important, but what you do. That's the only thing you have
> control over
Yes, but _what_ you do does or can effect others. It might also be
"important".
Marc:
> Complaining doesn't help learning. Pointing out mistakes,
> backing them up with data, and being open enough to look at
> and discuss the data and situation does.
I agree completely. When I point out what I think are mistakes
I try to back up my assertions with data and models. That's one
reason for the demos at my website.
But what happens when models don't exist, and the only "data" you have are
the words you and others exchange?
One reason I fight so little with Bill Powers (and we have had
disagreements) is
because we typically settle our disputes with data or (more often)
models.
Yes, but it is my contention ( along with those of Abbott and Gregory, I
believe ) That it is your respect for Bill that allows you to reflect on
Bill's critisims rather then lashing out at him. You do not perceive Bill to
be a "threat" to your beliefs about PCT, and you do not perceive Bill as
wanting
you to change your position about PCT. ( Both, probably true ) I don't think
there is anyone else on the net ( except for Mary ) where this holds true
for you. I thinks this creates problems because sooner or later the
discussions always seem to out grow the explanatory power of the models.
Then the "data" changes. Then it becomes a matter of conjecturing from our
knowledge of the model and trying to extrapolate and generalize from it The
only thing that can be tested in these cases is the reasoning and logic we
use in the conjecturing process. I think that this logic and reasoning could
be an important source for learning. Then again it just might be BS. How do
we seperate the chaff from the wheat?
I really think we could move our net discussions away
from hostile and snarling "win/lose" toward adversarial but
friendly "right/wrong" if the participants in these discussions
(myself included) would more often resort to "arbitration" by
data and models.
I couldn't agree more. Data not only being of the kind used in models, but
also of the kind used in interpreting what someone is trying to say.
Me:
> I assume that your offenses are unintentional. I wish you would
> assume the same about my offenses, but that's up to you.
Marc:
> The problem here is not in the intentions. The problem is in
> the assuming. Why assume anything?
Rick:
Because it's such a waste of time to do otherwise. These are
such trivial "offenses" (imagined or real). I say just try to
ignore them and deal with what matters: how living systems work.
Right, and spending 3 days throwing BS back and forth isn't a waste of time
and bandwidth. I am not suggesting that _everything_ be reflected on. I am
suggesting that when something is important to someone and an opportunity is
present for someone to learn. _If_ the people involved agree, then
reflection could be a useful tool.
Me:
> I believe a person who understands PCT will respect people
> despite these "failings";
Marc:
> I don't think so.
Rick:
You're right. I should have said "a person who understands
PCT _can_ respect people despite these "failings". Some
people (Hitler, Stalin and Milosovic come to mind) just
aren't really worth trying to respect.
Let me rephrase this.
"A person can respect other _individuals_ inspite of any "failings" another
person might have. and Regardless of they're theoretical Psychological
background. 
So, nu? Where are those questions about control theory?
I'll resend the entire post to you privately.
Marc