No, it is not a general statement, it a meaningless statement. It is true that some observations are side effects of producing intended results, but there are no general “side-effects of control”. If you claim that a specific observation is not inteneded, then you must demonstrate it, a “realization” is not enough. You can do some version of the TCV, and show that a variable is not controlled.
Then you can say “this is demonstrably not a controled variable, perhaps it is a side effect of control of x and property y”, or whatever. And then, if you make a model, and it still produces the same behavior as the subject with a different controlled variable, that is a pretty good demonstration of understanding the behavior.
in the case of the power law, that controlling is the movement behavior itself.
“movement behavior itself”? No, in this paper, the proposed controlled variables are the phase and size difference.
Of course, the reason you see a power law side effect of movement is because there is a mathematical power relationship between speed (V) and curvature (C)
Oh, you’re still stuck with that one. No, V and C are generally independent variables. But did you check out the other paper? Angular speed should be avoided when assesing the speed-curvature power law [preprint]
Something that we all missed is that angular speed should not be correlated to curvature.