[From Rick Marken (940926.0830)]
Ed Ford (940925.7:50) --
My question is, are we loosing what we once had and, more
importantly, what we once were? Will next summer's conference
having fewer people? Will Closed Loop cease? I think these are
questions we all have to face if PCT is to grow and prosper.
Maybe I am overstating what's happening. Maybe not?
I think it's very possible that you are observing a real phenomenon -- the
decline of CSG and CSG-L. I have a not very optimistic theory of why this is
happening. Basically, I think it's happening because hardly anyone has been
willing to turn their back on the past and do PCT science. I think many
of those who are currently in CSG and on CSG-L got interested in PCT for
various reasons that had little to do with what PCT is about -- a new
scientific approach to understanding purposeful behavior. Most of those who
were drawn to PCT (often based on their reading of B:CP) seem to have seen
PCT as consistent with one or another of their existing beliefs about one
thing or another. Very few came to PCT because they were interested in
pursuing the scientific investigation of the nature of the behavior if living
systems. So very few people have actually done anything like research based
on PCT. Hardly anyone is out there pushing on hypothetical controlled
variables in even moderately systematic ways to demonstrate the kinds of
variables living systems actually control. And even fewer have actually tried
to build models that could replicate _actual_ control phenomena.
People who are interested in PCT but who have not dedicated themselves to
studying and modeling control remain interested in PCT (I think) only as long
as they keep hearing the right stuff come from the PCT pulpit (with the Rev.
W. T. Powers giving the daily sermon). Once they start hearing things that
give them the impression that PCT is actually inconsistent with some
cherished belief, then I can't help thinking that their interest in PCT is
very likely to wane. This is what I think is happening to CSG and CSG-L.
People whose interest in PCT was essentially religious (they liked the sound
of the ideas) will eventually move on to another cult.
Unless we are able to attract new people to CSG and CSG-L who are able to do
the research and the modelling that PCT is really about then CSG, CSG-L and
PCT itself are gone -- until someone rediscovers it 100 years from now.
PCT will not survive if everyone is busy trying to find new ways to
_describe_ it, trying to _write books_ about it or to trying to _apply it_
(after all, there are currently only about 20 or so research papers
describing experiments that support only the most basic PCT model; the
applications of PCT are nice but they are way out on a scientific limb).
There is nothing wrong with trying to find new ways to describe PCT (Bill P.
tries it all the time on the net) or trying to write books about it (heck,
I'm still trying) or trying to apply it (you gotta try something and it can't
be any worse than what's being done without PCT). But these things will not
solidify the science -- or help it grow into anything other than a bigger
cult. The only hope for CSG and CSG-L and PCT is to have people out there
doing PCT science (testing and modelling). We need more people who are
already in psycholgy, sociology, biology, etc to simply _change_ their
research programs into PCT research programs. We need people -- tenured or
potentially tenured researchers, if possible -- who can competently perform
PCT science: REAL PCT science, not the Lord, Locke, Carver variety. Unless
that starts happening, I'm afraid, PCT will have to wait for quite some time
until it becomes the generally accepted and understood "new view" of living
systems.
So I heartily concur with Greg Williams (940926) whose post I just received,
after I composed the above. Greg says:
(for whatever reasons) time spent arguing on the net in recent months has
resulted in less time for presenting "basic" PCT research, by which I mean
modeling and conducting experiments. I have seen very little new along these
lines discussed on the net in the past year, and I have gotten no papers
reporting the results of research for publication in _Closed Loop_ in nearly
a year. In my opinion, it is a sad situation: stagnation (in appearance, at
least, if not in actuality -- reporting research results is just as important
as doing the research!).
Greg is absolutely right. I accept some responsibility for this because I've
been wasting my time trying to write a book; I should be trying to develop my
research on control of higher level variables. But I don't think it's
possible for a very small number of people (and I mean small; the number of
_active_ researcher/modellers currently stands at 2, as far as I know;
that's Tom Bourbon and Bill Powers) to be responsible for developing the
entire modelling and research base of PCT.
I know that doing PCT research is new and unfamiliar to many who have done
conventional kinds of research -- but unless more people step up to the plate
and try doing PCT research, PCT is not going to fly (at least, not in this
decade). Maybe the Center will help but even the Center has to have
more than two or three people trying to generate the research base for a new
science.
Without a strong modelling and research base, PCT will disappear for an
indetermine time. It will only remain alive if we can get a few more
competent people out there to roll up their sleeves and start the life
sciences over again. We need people who are willing and able to do research
and modelling based on an understanding that organisms control their own
perceptual inputs. The only people who can do this are those who understand
the basics of PCT and are willing, therefore, to TURN THEIR BACKS
on all that has gone before, recognizing that it was all based on an
understandable misconception about the nature of behavior.
PCT can only be maintained by people who are willing to start the science
of life off in a completely new direction -- in the direction indicated by
the sign labelled "PCT". If significant numbers of competent researcher/
modellers don't start doing this, then PCT will disappear (like Eulid's
"Elements") for a spell until it is rediscovered years from now by people who
have finally had it up to here with "science" like that done by Kernan and
Lord.
Best
Rick