[FROM: Dennis Delprato (921215)]
Rick Marken's recent replies to reviewers of his "Blindman"
paper brought home what I suggest is another major roadblock
to comprehension of PCT. Recall his major thesis:
"If organisms are in a negative feedback situation with respect
to the environment, then their behavior will APPEAR to be SR,
reinforcement and cognitive when it is actually NOT -- it is
CONTROL OF PERCEPTION". (921213)
This is obvious to CSG-L participants, but a most
remarkable position to just about everyone else who is
involved in bio-behavioral science. What makes it so
difficult is that it rules out the classical science
idea of the independent observer. The above fundamental
of PCT is based on a particular "point of view."
The point of view is NOT one of the conventional
independent observer/experimenter of the classic
independent variable-dependent variable framework
of mainstream psychological science. In fact, basically,
Rick's point is that as long as researchers stick to the
classic methodology, they will never detect the very
different picture from the one tradition yields. From its
point of view, behavior is best described as S-->R, motor
program --> movement, ....
The issue seems to be
somewhat related to what physics went through in moving
from classic mechanics/physics to what the professional
physics literature refers to as the new (or modern, or
relativistic, or quantum) physics. As physicists more
and more went into the microscopic world, they found, to
their dismay, that the physical events could not be
described and known independently of the behavior of the observer,
including the particulars of the conditions of observation
(e.g., "measuring instruments"). They didn't realize it
then, and still don't, but they discovered that the
dichotomy between a physical world and a psychological
world (so much a part of our cultural tradition) no longer
made sense, except as fiction. Notions such as indeterminancy
and complementarity evolved to help thinkers cope with the
confusing conclusion that a physical world independent of
the observer, and thus an observer independent of the physical
world as well, no longer fit into formal scientific formulations.
Only the vernacular, but not the formal scientific language,
allowed preservation of the traditional dualisms.
As Dewey and Bentley (in Knowing and the Known, 1949) put it,
physical science was forced to adopt transactional procedures
of inquiry in which "transaction" refers to the "full ongoing process
in a field where all aspects and phases of the field, including
inquirers themselves, are in common process."
Although it is possible to find hints of recognition of the
need for transactional procedures of inquiry in psychology,
as we full well know, classic independent variable - dependent
variable with independent observer is the only approach to
inquiry even taught at the highest levels of psychological
training. (And it is most unfortunate when one has to resort
to "naturalistic observation" or to "correlational" methods.
But at least one can work like the dickens to keep the
observer *independent* in these cases.) Rick is asking quite
a bit of his readers. I imagine few even recognize what they
are being asked to consider. If we examined them in great depth,
I'll bet that the most astute will get as far as something like,
"This is your (Dr. Marken) point of view. I suppose you believe
it sincerely and with good reason, but I Cannot buy it. I cannot
get into your shoes/head/mind."
I fear that wider acceptance of PCT views will require more
direct consideration of the inevitable role of the observer
in psychological inquiry. When this has been addressed in the
mainstream literature, the observer has been taken as a creator
of data and knowledge, with the result of preserving material-
spiritual dualism. I believe the PCT alternative is one in
which knowledge is relative to the observer. My suggested
emphasis may seem unnecessary, but the equations do not
interpret themselves, as should be obvious by now.
Dennis Delprato