A quote that seems relevant to the current state of PCT.
“After much ‘abstract’ inbreeding, a mathematical subject is in danger of degeneration. Whenever this stage is reached the only remedy seems to me to be the rejuvenating return to the source: the reinjection of more or less directly empirical ideas” [emphasis mine]
—John von Neumann
Yes, more empirical research concerning PCT is definitely needed!
‘Injecting’ more mathematics is a good thing for PCT and too often neglected. There’s the problem that perceptions are harder to quantify at higher levels of the hierarchy.
I agree with what I think you are saying here, with the obvious caveat that there are no theory-free observations in science.
The “abstract inbreeding” that has resulted in the degeneration of PCT (as dealt with on this forum, anyway) is the proliferation of observation-free theories.
I don’t know why one would set theory and experiment or passive observation in opposition. In my world, each feeds on the other in a positive feedback loop. Observation, and even more so experiment, is guided by theory and vice-versa. Observation without theory is not understood, theory without grounding in observation is hot-air lifting a balloon to unknown destinations. Some people are skilled at experimentation, some at theory development, a few do both. All are needed.
As for this forum, the ossification of theory as being only what Bill Powers wrote might be a much bigger problem than the few attempts to treat it as a living, changing, growing, entity might ever be. To continue the hot-air balloon analogy, the balloon once launched provides a wide view of the landscape, no matter where it goes, and like present-day lidar in the tropical jungles, can lead experimenters to seek “ground-truth” in places likely to be profitable.
I don’t think it’s a positive feedback loop, but in my world, as well, observation is guided by theory and vice versa. I just don’t see much of the “vice versa”-- theory guided by observation – in your work.
I should note, by the way, that my impression that there has been a “degeneration of PCT” is just my point of view. But the practical consequence of this apparent “degeneration” is that there doesn’t seem to be anyone (here on Discourse, anyway) who is interested in collaborating with me on research aimed at developing PCT science – which means testing the PCT model – in the way I (and I’m pretty sure Bill Powers) thought it should be done; basically, in the way described, in general terms, in the last chapter of my book The Study of Living Control Systems. But if there are such people here, please feel free to get in touch with me and let’s see what we can come up with.
Best regards
Rick
In Britain there is an appropriate metaphor for this comment, Nelson putting his telescope to his blind eye (and succeeding in his control of a perception of the two maritime forces with a reference for the British dominating the French).
I hope you succeed in your valuable work, as I control for succeeding in mine in their two different environments of observation and experiment. I trust the metaphor fails when applied so far as to treat us a commanders of opposed communal forces.
I wonder how much of PPC you have actually read carefully (used your metaphoric telescope), but I suppose I will never know.
Martin
Martin
The two aspects—observation and theory—don’t have to be advanced simultaneously at one and the same time. Historically, they often alternate, with dialog between them. Theory can guide experiment and observation, observations can have consequences for theory.
Nor do they have to be advanced by one and the same person always. That dialog can be between different people in the community. Often has been.
Rick, you know I always want to collaborate with you! Send a suggestion my way and we can find someone for it!
RP: Yes, more empirical research concerning PCT is definitely needed!
EP: I think no one can disagree.
MT: I don’t know why one would set theory and experiment or passive observation in opposition.
EP: Perhaps the answer could be found here: The Art of Being Right - Wikipedia
RM: I should note, by the way, that my impression that there has been a “degeneration of PCT” is just my point of view. But the practical consequence of this apparent “degeneration” is that there doesn’t seem to be anyone (here on Discourse, anyway) who is interested in collaborating with me on research aimed at developing PCT science – which means testing the PCT model – in the way I (and I’m pretty sure Bill Powers) thought it should be done; basically, in the way described, in general terms, in the last chapter of my book The Study of Living Control Systemshttps://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/psychology/experimental-psychology/study-living-control-systems-guide-doing-research-purpose?format=PB. But if there are such people here, please feel free to get in touch with me and let’s see what we can come up with.
EP: I really wish I could reply to this like Warren, but experimental research is not everyone’s business. I just don’t have the needed resources. Hopefully someone some day has and hopefully they use as well developed theory as possible. Until then I just have to try to at least problematize the current theories.
Best
Eetu
Bravo Warren! Excellent!
My means to conduct experiments are pretty much limited to the laboratory I was born with.
Oh, my, Eetu. Thank you for the reference to Schopenhauer.
A Mobi epub version of the (posthumous) book is here. A nice ebook reader for PC is here.
I don’t think you (or anyone else, actually) got the point of the von Neumann quote, which I copy here:
After much ‘abstract’ inbreeding, a mathematical subject is in danger of degeneration. Whenever this stage is reached the only remedy seems to me to be the rejuvenating return to the source: the reinjection of more or less directly empirical ideas ” [emphasis mine]
—John von Neumann
I take ‘abstract inbreeding’ to refer to theory (an abstraction, such as PCT) that is being continuously extended (“improved” through breeding) by an in-group such as this one (inbreeding) with no empirical basis for the “improvement”. It’s not a lack of research that’s responsible for what I see as the “degeneration” of PCT on this forum; it’s the result of the baseless breeding of “improvements” to the theory.
Best, Rick