Locke tersely

[from Jeff Vancouver 940922]
[Rick Marken 940921.1100 & 1900] & [Tom Bourbon 940921.0806]

Deductive reasoning is when the theorists focuses on the model and makes
inferences about the observations (i.e., reasoning from the general
to the specific). Inductive reasoning is when one focuses on
observations and attempts to draw general premises (i.e., reasoning from
the specific to the general).

When you (Tom & Rick and others) focus on creating your simulation and
_then_ testing it against observation, you are doing deductive research.
A very legitimate enterprise, particularly in the long run.

When Locke and others are collecting data and then trying to make
inferences of the underlying causes, they are doing inductive research.
Very useful at early stages of phenomenon examination, but limited in the end.

When one has a good model from which to base deductive research, they
should do it until their hearts are content. You have such a model and
that is what you are doing. Great. You really do have little reason to
bother with the others' work (except, as Runkel maintains and I concur, to
provide clues for controlled variables; I also believe there are gaps that
could use some help from other places, but you have located the
most useful places - like perception psych). I do think you are wasting
_your_ time keeping up on the likes of Locke.

WHen you have a flawed model, like Locke's, deductive research is often a less
than useful
and can lead one to believe deductive research as a method is flawed. I
think this is one of the things that is going on in Locke's head.
Ironically, Locke's model is close to being like your model (actually, not
so ironically, because the observations are of the same phenomenon, so
that the models are similar is not surprising). But close does not cut
it, _for the purposes of understanding control_. Probably true.

But you also note that it is difficult to get tenure doing the PCT thing
(deductive research using the PCT model). This is because the larger
scientific community (or at least a crtical mass) has not accepted aspects
of the model, the method, or the attitude of the proponents of PCT. So
what does one do? 1) Give up convincing the scientific community if they can
afford to, or 2) try the convince some of them. You have choosen the former
because you can afford to (or perceive that you can, which I do not
question). I however, cannot afford to (or perceive that I cannot). Thus
I am trying to convince.

All I am asking is that you do not make my job harder than it already is!

Obviously, their are other differences in our position than this (I am much
less negative about averaging across people, etc.), but you have made
these points (to me anyway) and we are agreeing to disagree.

One final point, I found Mary's post about Locke very informative. I do
not want to stiffle that kind of post. I gives me a better appreciation of
where the distractors are, what kinds of arguments might work, what might
not, and who might not be worth trying to convince. For example, I know the
method arguments will not work very well. I still make them, but put the
thrust of my arguments elsewhere.

I will address Bill's post regarding DM and self-esteem after getting some
work done.