Bill Cunningham (931117.1700)
(Martin Taylor 931117.1340)
Martin makes reference to a private note and shames me into posting to
the net, which seems fair enough. Here it is with minor editing. I
might add that the MUST BE aspect of PCT is what originally attracted me
also.
···
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has struck me that the WHY-HOW mismatch is at the heart
of much of PCT's problems with the outside world. PCT is really a
HOW theory. Sure it opposes other HOW theories, but it must really
irritate the hell out of the WHY askers. That may be a simplistic assessment,
but that's the way it comes across. And that's the source of
PCT's weaknesses.
When you (Martin) first posted the DOF argument, I leaped on it--
because it set forth a condition that obviously had to be true, but without
saying how. Nobody else bit then, or subsequently (at least that I can
recall). My hangup with PCT for some time has been that the theory is
firmly based on controlling something already chosen for control. That's
a HOW theory that never addresses WHY that particular choice was made--and
therefore HOW the choice might be made. My simplistic view of the IT
contribution is that it provides another HOW--an explanation of how the
choice might be made, based on what we know information does. But there
is little or no requirement for this HOW if you don't ask WHY a given
percept is placed under control vice some other.
My other quarrel with PCT (as argued) is that a model is a model is a model
is not necessarily reality. If a model is a HOW model, it must assume the
WHY or the WHAT MUST it do. That's self-limiting, confining exploration to
a current menu of HOWs and making generalization dangerous. Right now, I'm a
bit confused by the seeming equivalence between WHY and WHAT MUST; but clearly
you can't do one without the other.
What this boils down to is that a hybrid PCT/IT model (the twin lead sled
dogs in my much earlier metaphor) is more likely to be right than a"pure" PCT
approach because it addresses some things WHAT MUST be done
to select for relevance, etc. It may come across as a HOW model, but it
it really addresses WHAT MUST happen in some fashion if the control
model is to be allowed to work.
With apologies to W.S Gilbert (and to CSGnetters not addicted his nonsense)
Nevermind the WHY and wherefore,
HOW can't level ranks and therefore,
Tho your logical relation in my set could never pass,
Tho you must defend a station of a lower middle class--
Ring the merry bells on board ship
Rend the air with warbling wild
For the ruin of HOW lordship
By a humble WHAT MUST child.
----------------
Cheers to all,
Bill C.
Bill Cunningham, ATCD-G
HQ TRADOC//ATCD-G//(804) 727-3441/DSN 680-3472//