[from Jeff Vancouver 980232.11:45 EST]
To faciliate Rick's testing for my CV's I have collected into this one post
my actions (I would normally say reactions, but that system has been
reorganized), which presumably arise (I am not suppose to use that either,
but appearing the reorganizing system is still working on it) from the
disturbances of Rick and others on the net.
[From Bill Powers (980227.1701 MST)]
Jeff Vancouver 980227.1655 EST --
Why do you think I want to maintain that 95% condition?
I am just guessing here, but I think you have a principle-level ECU that
controls for "learning something about humans." As it is now organized,
correlational data would be considered valid data only if it were above
.975. Only then could it used to learn something.Why you set it at that level? I do not know. Probably due to the nature
of most of the problems you have attempted to tackle.I've explained my reason several times -- just checking to see that nobody
apparently heard it, understood it, or agreed with it.
This does ring a bell, and no, I do not agree with it.
Consider how we explain the seasons of winter and summer. This explanation
is dependent on a number of facts that we accept as true, and they _all_
have to be true at the same time for the explanation to work. Without
trying to analyze the line of reasoning rigorously, we have something like
this:1. The earth orbits the sun in a nearly circular orbit.
2. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the orbital plane.
3. The earth is heated by radiant energy from the sun.
4. The local temperature of the earth is affected by the rate at which
radiant energy is received per square mile of surface area.5. When the sun is high in the sky, more energy is received per square mile
of surface than when the sun is low in the sky.6. The sun is higher in the sky in the summer than in the winter.
7. Therefore the earth is warmer during the (local) summer.
So to reach the conclusion, six facts must be simultaneously true. This is
probably a very low estimate for this particular conclusion. Each fact has
some probability of being true under given conditions. The probability that
the conclusion is true is the product of the probabilities of each of the
facts on which it rests, since they all must be true at once for the
conclusion to be true.Suppose each fact has a probability of 90% of being true. The probability
that the conclusion is true is 0.9 * 0.9 *0.9 * 0.9 *0.9 * 0.9 , or 0.53.
That means that the conclusion could be arrived at very nearly as
dependably by saying "Heads it's true, tails it's false."
Your usually thorough thinking is amazingly incomplete in this description.
First, you have dichotomized statements of fact as true or false and
scaled them on the probability of being true. Yet, the first statement the
word nearly is present which makes it an ambiguous statement which may be
true or false depending on how someone resolves the ambiguity. Second, the
4 statement refers to a variable that might be measured to assess the
validity of the model being hypothesized. So if one was to measure the
temperature of the earth (in some location) and the angle of the sun in the
sky (at some time in the day, say its zenith), the correlation that would
result after a couple of years would likely not be .98 (I do not know what
it would be), because much local phenomenon (e.g., el Nino) goes into
determining temperature. That correlation is not the same thing as
probability that the statement is true. Finally, the measurement of the
thing (i.e., temperature) can add error. Given that latent variables
(i.e., controlled perceptions) are difficult to measure, this problem is
greater in some areas of psychology than some areas of physics.
So that's my reason for not considering truth-probabilities of less than
0.95 to be of much use in science.
So, correlations are not truth-probabilities.
[From Bruce Gregory (980228.1214 EST)]
In a post last week I made the modest suggestion, strongly disavowed by Jeff,
that he and Rick live in different perceptual worlds.
and
[From Bruce Gregory (980301.0518 EST)]
Two possibilities. You dwell in a world given by the perception that others
are autonomous agents in their own perceptual worlds. Or you don't. You alter
your world, or you try to impress it on others.
[Martin Taylor 980228 17:30]
Rick Marken (980227.1720)]
Actually, it's rather easy to figure out what you, Jeff, Bruce A.,
Bill and I are controlling for: THE SAME THINGS! Remember,
we control perceptual VARIABLES. If we are pushing hard against
each others' disturbances, it's because we are all controlling
the same of similar perceptual _variables_; we are in conflict
becuase we want those variables at DIFFERENT REFERENCE VALUES.
There would be no conflict between us at all if we were controlling
different perceptual variables.Astute comment. Perfectly correct. At least in respect of some variables
we are controlling.
I somewhat agree with Martin here, Bruce. It is largely about different
reference levels, not different perceptions. On the other hand, I do not
totally agree with Martin. Clearly the way inputs are interpreted (i.e.,
the functions they pass through) are different between Rick and I, just not
all that different. Which accounts for more of our conflict? I do not
know how to put them on the same scale. In terms of what I disavowed, it
was not that we do not live in different perceptual worlds, because I think
we do.
But the two possibilities statement is also problematic for me. It forces
the argument to an either/or dichotomy that is far too simple a
characterization to reflect the complexity of the conflict.
[From Rick Marken (980227.0840)]
Martin Taylor (980227 03:45) --
On Tuesday Rick accepts that p is a function of d, given that the
loop functions and the reference level don't change, and on Wednesday
he returns to his old position that it isn't.Bill Powers (980227.0814 MST)
Neither Rick nor I accepts that p is a function of d. P is a
function of d and o, where o is a function of r and pSorry, Bill. But Martin is right. Just because p is a function
of d and o doesn't mean it's not a function of d. p is a
function of d and o is a function of p. It's cause-effect
right around the causal loop.
This is what amazes me most. Causality has many meanings. One is the "is
a function of" meaning. Here Rick seems to admit that p = f(d) and p =
f(d, o) can both be correct. Yet, he cannot acknowledge that d is a cause
(not "the" cause, just "a" cause) of p.
Bill is correct, this is futile.
Sincerely,
Jeff