> Then it's not a scientific theory. Logical consistency is a necessary
> but not sufficient condition for generating a good scientific theory.
> I'm no Popperian, but the possibility of empirical disconfirmation is a
> crucial characteristic of any meaningful scientific theory. If you're
> not interested or willing to test your logically consistent theory by
> evaluating evidence, you're doing quasi-theology or philosophy (which is
> not necessary bad, but let's call it what it is).
But Doug is referring to refuting a specific *economic* theory (efficient markets).
As I said, among the economists, a "theory" is a specific deductive reasoning: an "if x, then y" type of statement. Good luck if you think you can persuade the economists that their semantics is wrong.
This is from the PEN-L archives, on this and related issues:
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2008w09/msg00057.htm http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2004w42/msg00029.htm http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2006w02/msg00094.htm