Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 11, 2008, at 8:55 PM, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> >
> >> And many philosophers of science would agree with
> >> Laibman on that point.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure economics is a science, but that might be a quibble.
> >
> > Why do you have to prove a successor truth when you think something is
> > untrue?
>
> You don't. The argument is incoherent. If a theory is consistently
> contradicted by data, it's not a good scientific theory. Whether or not
> there are other theories that explain the contradictory data is irrelevant.
>
This too is incoherent. It is theory that determines what data is data.
According to my coputer, the current temperature outside is 70. Is that data relevant to efficient market theory. I say it is. Prove me wrong.
You will have to articulate a theory to prove that that data isn't data.
That in a way is what the Theory people (who Doug is so anxious to defend) are all about: the overthrow of empiricism.
Carrol