From Greg Williams (930329 - 4)
Rick Marken (930329.1100)
I don't recall reading of accusations of arrogance
directed toward Einstein, though I've read much on his life and work
(such as Clark's biography).
Both sides had very precise working models and methods for testing them.
So instead of yelling "arrogant claims" the establishment TESTED Albert's
claims; oops, they turned out to be correct.
I suspect that Einstein's non-arrogant demeanor played a part in that.
I don't see how it follows that "doing the work" gives someone a right
to be arrogant.
The things we are saying that are being called "arrogant" are usually
just testable assertions. The "no information in perception" claim is
one.
How can you test, today, whether rebuilding psychology on a PCT
foundation will actually meet your own and/or other psychologists'
goals? You are currently just ASSUMING it will, not having tried, I
think, to apply the foundational method of testing for controlled
variables to "hard" cases in the field. Want to join Bill Powers and
try it on me?
We are called arrogant for making it and saying that it
invalidates the IV-DV approach to studying behavior -- even though
we have presented evidence for this position over and over.
An IV-DV basis for generative behavioral modeling IS contradicted by
PCT, but the "IV-DV approach to studying behavior" also includes, as
I've been trying to say recently, deriving statistical measures of
population characteristics, with no commitment to an IV-DV generative
model. When you don't make it clear that you don't include the later
in "studying behavior," you sound arrogant to me. When you are more
careful, you don't (as I've said before). Saying that ALL of
psychology needs to be REVOLUTIONIZED by PCT is not being very
careful.
As ever,
Greg