[From Bruce Gregory (90422.1240 EDT)]
Rick Marken (990422.0900)
Bruce G.
> A flaw from your point of view not from his.
Me:
> Oh, I forgot. Everyone's point of view is right.
Bruce Gregory (990422.0708 EDT) --
> Could you remind me when I made this claim?
In your sentence above. If saying "behavior is the control of an
objective world" is wrong only from "your [my] point of view,
not his", then it's not wrong; we're both right.
It could be that neither of you is right! I was trying the understand
things from his point of view, not because I thought it was right, but
because I believe that understanding the other person's viewpoint makes
one more effective.
> I may point out that a model that prevails for 1500 years should
> not be counted as a total failure.
The flat earth model prevailed (and "worked") for well over 1500
years; it's still wrong. Anyway, I'm not saying that control
theory (which has been around for only about 65 years; artifactual
control systems have been around much longer than that--maybe 3000
years) is a "total failure". In fact, it's not a failure at all.
PCT is not a rejection of control theory; it _is_ control theory --
good old engineering control theory.
My point was the engineers don't see it this way. That doesn't make them
right but it tends to make arguing with them unproductive.
What I'm saying is that some
of the things expert control theorists (like the reviewer) say
about control theory are demonstrably wrong. Control systems control
perceptual variables, not, as the expert control theorist said,
objective states of affairs. This is a fact that can be easily
demonstrated through use of a working control model. The expert
control theorist who reviewed my paper didn't understand this
aspect of how control systems work. When the reviewer says that
control systems actually control objective states of affairs, he's
_wrong_, right?
Right.
What?!?!? If a physics student says that the phases of the
moon result from the changing position of the earth's shadow
do you try to "understand" the student or do you explain why
s/he is wrong (ie. explain what actually causes the phases of
the moon)? I'm not vilifying the reviewer; I'm saying that he
is wrong -- demonstrably wrong -- when he says that control
systems control objective states of affairs.
You'll be surprised to learn that I _do_ try to understand the student.
There is a veritable mountain of evidence that shows that people cannot
build a correct understanding on top of faulty assumptions. One way to
make progress is to get the student to think about why she believes that
the phases of the moon are caused by the earth's shadow. If she can see
problems with this, _and_ she wants to understand what is happening, she
is much more likely to adopt a better model. (If she doesn't want to
understand what is happening, but only wants to get a good grade, she
will go along with you until the test is over and then revert to her old
model.)
I might understand that he said this because it doesn't matter
to him or because he's constipated or because he was able to
complete his final control engineering project successfully without
knowing it. But who cares? It's wrong anyway. I understand why the
Pope said that the earth is in the center of the universe; but that
doesn't change the fact that the Pope was wrong, does it?
No, but it saves you time in not arguing with the Pope. (That's a good
policy in general: never argue with the Pope!)
I think it's interesting, by the way, that you have this deep
desire to "understand" rather than "vilify" people with opinions
like those of the reviewer but feel perfectly comfortable vilifying
me whenever the urge strikes you (remember the "Rick is the enemy
of PCT" episode?).
When I called you the enemy of PCT I was trying to point out that your
staunch defense of PCT drives away people who really want to understand
PCT. I have been unstinting in my admiration for _Mind Readings_ and
your papers since then. You are wonderfully lucid and thorough in your
publications. You tend to shoot from the hip and to assume the worst of
everyone (but Bill) on CSGnet.
You seem to be very reluctant to say that people are wrong (except
when there is no evidence one way or the other, as in your posts
to Ken Kitzke). You seem to think that showing that someone is
wrong (using evidence and data) is somehow vilifying that person
(it's apparently not vilifying when it's just your opinion or when
I am the object of your vilification).
I worry when you say that an entire profession of successful engineers
do not understand control theory. Understanding PCT is very difficult
because of the shift in viewpoint it requires. Most people are very
reluctant to shift viewpoints. When you tell them they are wrong they
become even less likely to try to see things from your perspective.
Well, it's really not that
awful to be wrong (I was probably wrong about the prisms and FoE
and I posted a correction to the net; there is life after being
wrong).
Being wrong most of time myself, I appreciate the truth of this. In your
case, _you_ saw that you were wrong. In my experience that is essential.
If I had told you that you didn't know what you were talking about, you
might have been less than receptive.
It's not fun to be wrong; but I think being wrong is not
nearly are crippling as being ignorant. I think your approach to
science education (trying to "understand" why everyone thinks as
they do) might keep people from feeling the mild pain of being
wrong but the result will be a bunch of smiling ignoramuses.
I don't tell them they are right, and I do tell them what I see is a
better explanation. I do, however, respect their status as autonomous
control systems and realize they will reorganize when _they_ experience
error, not when _I_ do.
Great. Have you made any progress? Once you "understand" why the
reviewer took the position he took could you let me know whether
or not his position was right or wrong?
When I realized that engineers call a controlled variable the output of
a system, I began to realize how deep the problem runs. They really live
in a different world and communicating requires their willingness to
adopt a new viewpoint. No simple request. His position was wrong and
your was right, but that doesn't help to get papers published.
Bruce Gregory
) want PCT to be taken seriously by