[From RIck Marken (930314.1000)]
Gary Cziko (930314.0410 GMT) --
The "slipping rubber band" demo is beautiful; elegant and simple;
you're getting to be awfully good at this.
Hm, I suppose this casts Bill Powers or Rick Marken as Niels Bohr and
Martin Taylor or Allan Randall as Albert Einstein.
I don't like that casting. I feel more like Albert trying to explain
to a Newtonian that relativity predicts that the measured speed of light
will be the same regardless of the direction of motion of the observer rel-
ative to that of the light. I don't think the PCT model involves magic (in
the way quantum physics seems to); you gave a nice simple explanation of
the PCT model in your post. What we are having trouble with is convincing
people that a "non-prosaic" phenomenon (sensory input as DEPENDENT rather
than INDEPENDENT variable) actually occurs and that it is predicted
by the "prosaic" PCT model. I think relativity had an easier time than PCT
because Albert was dealing with an actual science (physics) which
expected (and got) precise predictions from and confirmations of the theory.
PCT offers precise predictions and confirmations but conventional behavioral
science offers statistical relationships in return ("well, that may happen in
your little tracking task, but look at all the studies that have found a
statistically significant relationship between independent and dependent
variable"); not much you can do to fight that -- except possibly pray for
the salvation of their immortal souls.
Rick (sleeping peacefully now that Bill's in and the jerks are out) Marken