>But I doubt if Laibman meant paradigm when he said theory. That
>would have been
>uninteresting, and Doug wouldn't have thought it silly, would he?
Here's the context. I laid out a bunch of empirical violations of efficient market theory (excess volatility, mean reversion, valuation anomalies, etc.), and said that the theory didn't stand. I did offer an implicit theory (crowd psychology, overreaction, etc.). But he objected to my conclusion that EM theory was disproved by the empirical contradictions. You can only replace a theory with another theory, but if you've got a theory that doesn't explain reality, you don't need to come up with a replacement to say it's wrong.
Doug