- Type: Unknown
- Attitude: Unknown
I understand and agree with the approach you’re taking for internal validity. But, without proof of the existence of the functions themselves, it’s a catch 22. CT makes the assumption of functions as a byproduct of the subjective interpretation of signals.
At which point, we must ask.. if the functions are real at all, what proof do we have of them?
And just what is their reality?
In what way are they real and what do they mean?
This is the heart of the matter. That’s why I’m suggesting another means of measure to verify this via triangulation. While Nardi’s data isn’t proving the existence of functions, its empirical approach implies their existence, and if his methodology comes to the same conclusion as CT’s methodology with enough correlation accuracy, then both systems could be seen to validate the existence of an abstract concept that cannot otherwise be verified through subjective interpretation of data.
This could be a big win for both of you and your approaches if they align well enough.