🚀 go-pugleaf

<[Bill Leach 950212.22:45 EST(EDT)]
>Message: 28472 on Sat, 11 Feb 1995 21:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
 Author : msa@PANIX.COM
 Subject: Re: Lotsa Stuff
 SERVER : "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)"
 ----------------------------------------


> Of course *scientific observation* are not *your* observations are
>they? It is some "objective" observation where your values, thoughts,
>etc, etc are not involved. Tell me Rick, how would you know "Objective
>Reality" if *you saw* it. PCT says that it is impossible to know.

Really Marc, this is a bit off the wall.  The point of scientific method
is to establish knowledge that is NOT a matter of opinion.  Good PCT is
like good any other science.  An assertion based upon the theory is
verifiable by anyone that is willing to take the trouble to do the
experiment.  In PCT when people get different results while attempting
the same experiment then the assumptions come into serious question.  Any
"scientific fact under PCT" that Rick (or anyone else) observes is either
verified by others or it just plain IS NOT a "fact under PCT".

As to "... impossible to know";  At some level of thinking, it is
impossible to prove your own existance to yourself (much less others).
There is a point where to accomplish anything at all, one has to accept
certain things as axiomatic.  Such is true for all hard sciences
including PCT.  It is necessary to question these assumptions but not
everytime something is discussed or analyzed.


>Aligning PCT with the real world says that there is actually some
>practical use for this theory and research. If there is going to be any
>practical use, people are going to have to "buy" into the precepts. Not
>neccessarily because its *scientifically sound* (whatever that means)
>but because it is useful.

"Scientifically sound" means that the theory is verifiable as a valid
explaination of a phenomenon by others and that there is NO absolutely
contrary evidence.  "Buying into" a theory that is not scientifically
sound may have lots of benefits but none of them are related to science
or truth.


>I think Ed Ford and Dag Forrsell among others are trying to do that now.

Again, I think you are missing the point on what Ed and Dag are doing.
They are USING PCT principles to develop working programs for a
PREDETERMINED set of standards or principles.  PCT has absolutely nothing
to say about the "correctness" of their choices.  I too believe that what
Ed and Dag are doing is of great importance but it must be remembered
that their work is NOT focusing on improving or expanding the theory but
rather USING the theory.


>Your smart ass remarks (like the one below to Susan) do not endear
>anyone to you or your cause.

>>doing the opposite -- trying to align the real world with the theory --
>>is called scientific fraud. We try to avoid doing that.

In the first place, you have assumed that you know what perception Rick
is controlling (his cause) and I am willing to accept bets that your
assumption is wrong.

Secondly, the statement is just a statement of fact.  Using science to
try to "correct" a perceived error in the perception of others ABOUT the
"real" world is valid.  Trying to use "science" to change the perception
about the real world to one that is not supported by evidence is indeed
scientific fraud -- pure and simple.



-bill