<Bob Clark (940202.1530 EST>
Bill Powers (940129.0940 MST) suggests, in his response to Clark
If we consider not just the writings of behavioral scientists, but
the whole of human literature, we will find far better examples in
biographies, novels, diaries, poetry, songs, and histories. Pick
up any nonscientific book about people, like a murder mystery, and
start reading at random.
Later, in the same post:
we can take behavior and experience just as they appear to be. PCT
provides a direct link from a mechanistic theory of the brain to the
world in which most people live, to the experiences that most people
have all of the time.
This is consistent with my emphasis on the importance of our using
ordinary language in communicating with non-PCTers. My suggestion
was, in a sense, the opposite. That is, for PCTers to use (selected)
ordinary language to communicate with other people in general.
It can be a "two way street!"
and, still later:
PCT accepts the report at face value and tries to adjust the theory
to fit -- rather than accepting the theory as necessarily correct,
and modifying observations to fit.
To me, Bill, this statement summarized the essence of our mutual
orientation from the beginning of our collaboration.
I think my posts have generally been consistent with this view. If
you think otherwise, please let me know.
Regards, Bob Clark