# PCT acceptance **URL:** \ **Category:** CSG1993\ **Created:** [May 28, 1993, 10:25pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-acceptance/8230 "1993-05-28T22:25:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1

**Author:** ![Dag\_Forssell](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/e79b87/32.png) [@Dag\_Forssell](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dag_Forssell)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 1993, 10:25pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-acceptance/8230/1 "1993-05-28T22:25:00Z")

[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