Terse Replies

[From Rick Marken (940921.1100)]

Jeff Vancouver (940920) --

First, I would like to congradulate Rick for a terse response. It
faciliates discussion

Thanks. For you, it will be terse all the way.

Locke believes in grounded research (inductive reasoning) and Rick believes
in deductive reasoning.

Could you tersely explain what this means?

In both cases, their approaches have served them well, in that it has
provided them with a method to accomplish their goals.

True. My goal is understanding control; Locke's goal is getting professional
recognition.

However, that more elaborate, well specified theory (PCT) needs to
incorporate decision making:

It already does.

I am not sure what constitutes "nice, clear, reliable data" without some
theoretical filter for interpreting it.

There are many examples in my "Mind Readings" book and in Bourbon and Powers'
"Models and Their World's" article.

The data/observation that compels me and others to explain DM is the
observation that we make choices.

But a choice-making mechanism may not be needed to explain this. People can
also be observed responding to stimuli but an SR mechanism is not needed to
explain this.

The applied researcher is much more interested in casting nets. What you
labe misuse, others label useful.

Yes. And what some label "shit", others label "cavier". But it is still what
it is. The goal of applied PCT is to improve individual control. I can't
see how this goal can possibly be achieved by "casting nets".

Tersely

Rick

[From Oded Maler (940923)]

(Rick Marken (940921.1100):

True. My goal is understanding control; Locke's goal is getting professional
recognition.

Probably a slip of the tongue - I guess you meant to say that your goal
is the self-perception of understanding control, which is quite far from
the "objective" understanding.

Regards

--Oded

ยทยทยท

--

Oded Maler, VERIMAG, Miniparc ZIRST, 38330 Montbonnot, France
Phone: 76909635 Fax: 76413620 e-mail: Oded.Maler@imag.fr