[From Dag Forssell (930528 1520)]
I have pondered my post of 930506 and expanded on it to become an
enclosure to my promotional materials. Some discussions I have had with
prospects make me even more certain that these issues are real problems.
Charging right ahead, dealing with the issue head on, is one option. This
message does that.
Chuck and Tom: Can I count on your permission to quote you in this
fashion? Do you have requirements on how you are identified?
As always, any suggestions are welcome.
By the way, Chuck: What was that Powers post from last summer. And "How
to take effective control of your life" by Glasser was retitled "Control
Theory" as a paperback. They are identical in content.
···
------------------------------------------------------
Subject: "Very few" scientists... Page 1 of 2
This message is reprinted from the Control Systems Group network, an
electronic mail network for discussion of Perceptual Control Theory. It
relates to my paper _Quality of Theory_, and is offered as a suggestion
for discussion, not a definitive statement.
Date: Thu May 06, 1993 11:54 am PST From: CSGnet mailserver
From Dag Forssell (930506)
Quoting myself on "soft" science: [See: _Quality of Theory_ paper in
INTRODUCTION booklet].
*Empirical descriptions* are descriptions of *what* is happening based
on observations. Explanations are based on regularities; things that
usually happen "other things being equal." Testing and validation are
seldom rigorous. This leads to an intuitive or statistical recognition
that the observed phenomena and empirical laws = rules for practice.
Most "common sense" understanding of our world consists of empirical
descriptions.
The following excerpt is from a message on the acceptance of PCT by Chuck
Tucker (930505). Chuck is a professor of sociology.
...As one can read on the net, very few people tolerate being told
that their ideas are wrong. I know that scientists are not supposed
to shy away from having their ideas rejected with sound reasoning and
sound evidence but it appears that there are very few scientists that
are like that in the life sciences; perhaps this is why other
scientists don't consider us very scientific. But I have spent too
much of my time critically evaluating the so-called theories and
research in social psychology only to realize that it has made very
little difference in the discipline....
"Very few" indeed. Perhaps we can speculate about who and why. We agree
on this net that we all control (defend = resist disturbances to) our
highest systems concepts, which together make up our sense of self. If
a person lives by experience (empirical descriptions) and intuitively
recognizes that this experience is varied and less than certain, then
such a person lives in an uncertain world. Nevertheless, people have no
choice but to depend on their own integrated sense of their own
experiences. This sense can not be proved or disproved. But naturally,
it is defended. If you live with a science of this nature, (where 55%
correlation is impressive and publishable), it is author against author,
with no proof or disproof in sight. The *person* has to be right if your
world consists of (subjective) empirical descriptions.
Quoting myself some more from the same paper, this time on "hard"
science:
*Generative theoretical models* follow from a different and more
rigorous scientific method. They are based on logical modeling of
functional relationships at levels *below* the observed phenomena,
followed by testing with an expectation of 100% verification. They
offer *explanations* of *why* and *how* things happen.
The following excerpts are from messages on the perceived quality of
research data in the social sciences and in physiology by Tom Bourbon
earlier today. Tom is a professor of psychology and researches neurology.
Subject: "Very few" scientists... Page 2 of 2
...The physiologist who reacts as you suggest demonstrates another
dimension of the problem we face in trying to extend our
communications about PCT to a wider audience. That person sees the
legitimate data and rejects them as not of the proper type -- they are
behavioral, not physiological....
...And then there is the belief, like unto any I have ever seen in any
other branch of religion, that physiological data are real data, but
behavioral data are something else...
...Someone must recognize that these data [PCT] are solid, that the
behavioral data and theories on which most of the popular methods in
physiological research rest are not solid, and that they can do
something to change the state of affairs...
...A physiologist who reached that point might be willing to take the
next step and begin exploring, at the level of anatomy and physiology,
the possibility that nervous systems (and other systems) might be
organized as hierarchical control systems in the HPCT sense. But I
think the biggest problem is at the very beginning, where it seems
behavioral and life scientists just are not trained to know genuinely
hard behavioral data when they see them and where they are not trained
to insist that all people who propose "models" of behavior must let
those models perform.
As I read Tom, I see that physiological people identify with the hard
sciences, and lump all behavioral data with the soft, unreliable
sciences. Tom is pleading for someone to make the distinction by validity
of method and level of agreement between prediction and data and clearly
see what is soft and what is hard.
It occurs to me that Chuck's "very few" scientists have defined
themselves differently. What matters is not subjective individual
experience but a correct understanding of generative theoretical models.
The *model* is what should be right, not the *person*.
Now Chuck's comment:
...scientists are not supposed to shy away from having their ideas
rejected with sound reasoning and sound evidence...
makes more sense. Sound reasoning becomes a tool and criticism the
process by which one verifies the validity of a correct model. It is
still painful for a hard scientist to have a model fail, but then you
have reorganization (PCT speak for random changes made under stress),
sleepless nights, new ideas and eventually a new or better model.
My suggestion or conclusion on the question of the acceptance of PCT is
that it must be presented to and evaluated by people who 1) appreciate
the value (better living) of the understanding PCT offers, 2) appreciate
generative theoretical modeling [engineers are trained in this
explicitly, but anyone who wants to can follow the reasoning], and 3)
have defined themselves as people who understand things as accurately as
possible, not just as people who want to be right.
Best to all, Dag
--------------------------------------------------------------
end of "reprint". Dag