> At a seminar several years ago, when I tried to refute efficient
> market theory with empirical evidence, David Laibman, editor of
> Science & Society, informed me that you can't refute a theory with
> evidence, but only with another theory.
That's an old chestnut of philosophy of science/epistemology: since all observations are supposedly "theory-laden" (i.e., you can't observe anything in a "pure" way, without any theories conditioning your observations in some way), science is simply butting one theory against another.
True in a sense, but it overlooks the point that, independently of all theories, shit happens: when, as Sam Johnson pointed out in arguing against Bishop Berkeley, your foot strikes the stone, the theory you were going on, that there wasn't a stone in your path, is rather seriously diminished in likelihood, to say the least.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax