Some thoughts on joint paper and PCT

************* FROM CHUCK TUCKER 930505 ************

     Some thoughts on "joint paper" and "acceptance of PCT"

     I see no great problems with the "joint paper" as drafted if it
     is seen mainly as a "commentary" piece wherein a question is
     posed which very gently nudges someone to think about the issue
     of the rejection of different ideas in the social and behavioral
     sciences. With all due respect for Rick, I do not believe that
     his suggestions (930502.1100) would result in anything but
     another rejection. 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 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. I intend to keep doing it but my
     hopes for any change in the field are very limited and the
     expectations that anyone but a few of my friends will appreciate
     my efforts are extremely low. If you set these references high
     you are bound to live a life of error. But I do have another
     suggestion as to how PCT might make a difference in the life
     sciences.

     Actually my suggestion is not new but rather a continuation of
     previous work done by Bill, Clark and Gary. All of them have done
     work to show how PCT makes a difference in the theory,
     methodology and research that is done in psychology, sociology
     and educational psychology. What each has done is to take some
     research and re-cast it in PCT terms. Bill showed how
     experiments done with rats look differently from a PCT view.
     Clark has done the same with a host of ideas in collective
     behavior - contagion, locomotion, deprivation-frustration-
     aggression, deindividuation - and several others. Modestly, I
     think our work (with Ernie Rigney) on a re-analysis of the entire
     series of Milgram experiments (which we did BEFORE we knew of
     Powers's CT) is a excellent illustration of what can be done.
     Gary has done it with selected research in education (note that
     Gary's work was used to critically attack Rick's paper that
     started this most recent round of "what can be done to get PCT
     accepted" posts). The PCT message for methodology and actual
     research practices is as important as its theoretical notions
     [see Bill's (930428.0700) as an excellent example]. Most of the
     research has to be re-cast in more precise terms from a PCT
     perspective but it can be done. So take your favorite area of
     research and show how it would look differently from the PCT
     perspective. If nothing else you will have a better
     understanding of the model and the research it requires and
     perhaps a journal would publish it as a commentary with responses
     from other scientists defending their work. I think it would be
     quite useful to see some of this work done.