X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
X-VMS-To: @CSG
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 09:16:19 -0700
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Misc. blah

[From Bill Powers (921224.0845)]

Martin Taylor, Rick Marken

That's nice, don't fight.

It occurs to me that anyone who refuses to buy into your system
is a considered a fanatic relative to whatever that person does
buy into.

A reliable mark of a true fanatic is a complete lack of a sense
of humor.

Remember: YOU are a fanatic. I am steadfast.
--------------------------------------------------------------
RE a private post:

Netters with Macs will be delighted to know that Martin's
associate Chris Love is rewriting the Primer Series for Macs. The
result, Martin say, will be put on Bill Silvert's server some
time soon. I'll be adding to that series in January. Others are
welcome to contribute "chapters" that make specific points.
---------------------------------------------------------------
To all who felt that my "armchair" complaint was somewhat
unreasonable:

Well, it is unreasonable to ask people who are out in the world
of applications to turn into basic researchers. In my post to
Gary yesterday I tried to indicate what such people can do to
TEST the theory every time it's applied. Figure out what the
theory says SHOULD happen, and see what DOES happen.

I guess I'm asking people not to use PCT simply as another way of
talking about behavior after the fact, another form of
interpretation. If there is anything to PCT, it will stand up
under tough scrutiny. If someone comes up with a criticism of
PCT, the last thing you should do is defend it. That person might
be right. What you need to do is find out if the criticism holds
up. Don't be afraid to make predictions using PCT. Whether they
work out or not, you'll learn something. When they work, you'll
get a new jolt of confidence. When they don't, you'll discover,
perhaps, something you hadn't understood about PCT, or you may
discover something really wrong with the theory which we all
would be grateful to know about. If you don't defend the theory
you'll have nothing to lose however the tests come out.

One of our great difficulties with conventional science is the
prevalence of devoutly held beliefs that scientists defend as if
they've taken vows of loyalty to whatever subject they know the
most about. This means that any suggestion that their own theory
is wrong arouses an instant defense regardless of the merits of
the suggestion. If humanly possible, we should avoid putting that
kind of face on PCT. One way to do this is to treat the
interpretations of PCT as if they have to prove themselves anew
every time they're applied. Don't use easy tests; use HARD tests.
You can do this even if you're not doing basic research.
  -------------------------------------------------------------
Waiting for the rest of the offspring to arrive for a Christmas
visit. It's possible that I may skip replying to posts tomorrow!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all. Better times ahead.

Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU