From Greg Williams (930329 - 3)
Bill Powers (930329.0700)
I'd like to clarify some things about PCT and prediction.
That you did. Thanks very much.
To establish the circumstances where such predictions can
succeed, it's necessary to persuade the human participant to
agree to maintain a constant goal during an experiment (and
actually to do so), and for the experimenter to know the
quantitative sum of all important disturbances acting on the
controlled variable. Either of these requirements can be
difficult to meet under field conditions where the experimenter
can't predict all disturbances and has not deduced the nature of
the relevant controlled variable and its reference level.
Then how can behavioral scientists interested in predicting human
behavior in the field (especially if they are interested in predicting
population measures) be expected to get very excited about PCT? The
requirements for accurate predictions are very stringent and in many
cases simply impossible to meet -- yet the (blind to explanation)
statistical approach can sometimes produce precise predictions of
population measures.
···
-----
One of the frustrating aspects of our conversations on PCT and
other approaches is that right now there is only a tiny handful
of people actually trying to develop ways of exploring behavior
using the principles and methods of PCT. The rest of you guys,
however justified your objections and criticisms and comments,
are sitting on your butts and defending your personal status quo
and not doing a lick of experimental work to extend the scope of
PCT -- except from your armchairs.
I think I'm sitting on my butt and trying to test the limits of PCT
notions as strinently as possible, through critique and discussion. Of
course, it is only my opinion that tough criticism is essential in
science -- just as essential as doing experimental work.
Every person who has ever thought of a new idea and claimed that
it is better than old ideas has been accused of arrogance, of not
showing proper respect for the great achievements of others, of
making overblown claims, of not understanding what is good about
the old ways.
I doubt that. I don't recall reading of accusations of arrogance
directed toward Einstein, though I've read much on his life and work
(such as Clark's biography). I suspect it is true that MANY creators
of new ideas have been called arrogant. I also suspect that acceptance
of their good ideas was slowed by the accusations, so why give an
opportunity for such accusations to be made?
Maybe those accusations are correct, but so what, if the new idea is
in fact better than the old ones?
The so what, as noted above, is that acceptance will probably come
slower if you're perceived as arrogant. And that results in at least
one result which you obviously don't like: fewer investigators working
on your new idea for a longer time.
People who love the status quo have always got their knickers in a
twist over upstarts who dare to get cocky about their own achievements
and go around pointing out the Emperor's lack of modest attire. That's
the problem of the complainers. It has always been their problem.
They're responsible for it. They can very easily make it go away: get
into the trenches and start showing that the new idea is wrong, or get
into the trenches and start working to make it even better.
I consider myself in the trenches working to make the new idea better.
All the wailing and gnashing of teeth and complaints about violating
the comfortable standards of polite deference to the ideas of others
is, in my mind, the sound of oxen being gored and signifies mostly
that the point is being missed.
Maybe I'm missing some points, but one I am NOT missing is that
scientific ideas deserve the closest scrutiny and the most extreme
criticism.
If I'm arrogant or Rick is arrogant, we have a right. We're doing
the work, not watching a TV show.
I don't see how it follows that "doing the work" gives someone a right
to be arrogant. Nevertheless, if you exercise that "right," I predict
that your frustration about few folks contributing to PCT will last
for a longer time than if you yourself moderate your own wailing and
gnashing of teeth and get back to modeling and experiments. But I'm
not about to arrogantly suggest that you better spend less time
arguing on the net and more time in the lab. That choice is yours.
As ever,
Greg