So PCT is not "in jeopardy"?

From Brian D'Agostino (960103.2220 EST)]

First, an apology to Bill Powers. I had no intentions of engaging
in personal attacks or mockery in my post of (960102.0415 EST), but
I apologize because what I said could easily have been interpreted
that way and you so interpreted it. I intended to express
admiration for your scientific courage and integrity, but also to
ask how it could coexist with other tendencies in the CSG that seem
to me akin to the dynamics of cults.

I inferred courage and integrity because you said that the
control-system model might be "in jeopardy," and used phrases like
"back to the drawing board" and "let the chips fall." Now you seem
to be going to the other extreme and completely minimizing the
significance of the experiment, saying the only thing we will learn
is whether "rats are controlling anything we can identify in this
experiment" (960102.1330 MST). Which do you believe, or is the
truth perhaps somewhere in between? Is this middle ground perhaps
that the experiment can _disconfirm_ (since no one experiment can
completely falsify) the applicability of PCT or behaviorism to a
certain class of animal behavior? How should this class be
characterized?

Although I began studying PCT because I believed it had been
established as a valid model of elementary behavior and perception,
my own work has been at the highest levels involving self and
beliefs. Even if behaviorism ultimately proves a more powerful
model of the lower levels, my own data disconfirm the applicability
of environment-driven explanations at the level of self and beliefs
and suggest that PCT may be applicable here, whether or not it is
applicable elsewhere.

Best regards,

Brian