From Stefan Balke (960809.1130 CET)
Peter Cariani, (960808.1130 EDST) ---
Stephan Balke wrote:
No, certainly not. But maybe the further discovery
of small bakterias on Mars will lead to further poverty
on Earth. Clintons message about the
discovery of life on Mars and his announcement of greatest efforts for
further research arrived just one day after the message of dramatic
cuts in the social net.
This linkage is a gigantic red-herring if I ever saw one. Research
is such a miniscule part of the Federal budget. Stephan, if you're
want to attack and destroy science, this is the way to do it.
As a PCT-oriented scientist I'm convinced that their is no other way to
escape from privat and social problems than to do proper research. I believe
in the truths of Kurt Lewin's: 'There is nothing as practical as a good
theory'. Be sure, I certainly do not want to attack or destroy science. On
the contrary, I think that many parts of the society work on outmoded
pseudo-scientific knowledge and that it is necessary to spend much more
money into the renewal process (especially if it is PCT based :-)). So I'm
really on your side if you complain about the small research budget. I
myself could also need a little more money.
But you are right it the point, that my remark about the linkage between
Mars bacteria and poverty on Earth was thoughless. To be correct, I didn't
mean I as serious as you obviously perceived it. It was more that I was
shocked about Clintons announcement of social cut the day before. As I
listend to his speech about being proud of his NASA researchers, I got the
impression, that _he_ tried to make a red-herring. After the Olympic
disappointment and leaving the social course he used the Mars story to
regain control about an important perception, being successful and proud. So
my remark was intended (but not really good expressed) as a sarcastic hit
against Clintons policy to restore his proud without caring for the people
To be explicite, I'm not against doing exobiology research and Mars
journeys. Maybe I can convince you about my fascination for the space if you
visit my homepage and see my link to the best of Hubble Space Telescope
Rick Marken (960708.1030) ---
Stefan Balke (960808.1030 CET) --
3. Unfortunatly, the practicability of The Test for more complex situations
This is not necessarily true. The Test may be highly practicable in complex
situations. We don't know much about this yet because not many people are
using The Test systematically in these situations and reporting on "lessons
Are their any plans to make common efforts in the development of systematic
tests for controlled perceptions? It seems to be a very important point for
the development of (H)PCT - so, I can imagine, that their had been official
or private debates on one of the CSG meetings.
Anyway, even if The Test proved to be entirely "impracticable" in
some situations, it would not mean that we should go back to using the
misleading procedures that are used now. If people are perceptual control
systems then you can only understand them if you can figure out what
perceptions they are controlling; that's just the way it is.
And I'm not sure that it is necessarily _hard_ to use The Test. Mass
spectrometry was probably hard to use at first, too -- but the use of such
procedures get easier once you get a bunch of clever people involved in
figuring out how to simplify things. I bet that The Test will seem as easy
and intuitive as conventinal methods do now -- once it becomes the
conventional way of doing behavioral science.
What should be done to come closer to the goal of common efforts?