Date: Thursday, December o73,02 199896 6:22:35 PM From: rmbergn @ ilstu.edu Subj: Re: Re-send To: Paulzeiger@aol.com

Paul:

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. At this time, I have read the draft twice, and the following are my reactions.

While I am in general agreement with your position, I think that you need to do a whole lot more bridging to your audience. I assume that this audience is not a DP audience, since that would be "preaching to the converted" and wouldn't accomplish much. I take this audience to be people, especially psychologists, who are doing social science research, and who might be open for some new ways of thinking and doing things. On this bridging theme, here are a few specifics:

1. When you say "Success of a theory is measured by its ability to predict ... and control," I think this is on the money for psychology. However, when you then say "such behavior can seldom be predicted accurately, much less controlled," they are simply not going to listen, nor will they listen to assertions about the value of after the fact explanations. Both of these are simply bald denials of what many of them now believe, and must be supported by strong argumentation. If, in contrast, you go to something they all already believe, you could make some headway. For example, you might remind them of the fact that such scientific landmarks as evolutionary theory and the big bang theory have nothing to do with prediction or control, and thus that accepted science is already in the business of postdiction and understanding (vs. control). See Toulmin on "Foresight and Understanding".

2. When you say "Only that which has been rigorously empirically verified is considered to be true," again this captures their positivistic leanings. But then to follow by saying "if persons, in the course of everyday life, chose oly to act on those facts that had been rigorously empirically verified, they could never get anything done," will not be compelling to them. They will say, "We don't care about persons in everyday life--this is about science and scientific truth, not about the way that the man on the street runs his life." Again, I think you need much stronger beliefs that speak to their world view, that take them where they are. There are many anti-positivistic arguments out there (the trite but true one being that the verificationist principle cannot itself be empirically verified), and I would take a look at this this literature. Well, I won't multiply examples. My basic suggestion is to, again, meet 'em where they're at" and to try from there, with strong and compelling arguments, to lead em across a bridge to some of the better things that DP has to offer.

Sincerely, Ray