[lbo-talk] URPE Summer Conference -- Aug 15-18 -- REGISTERNOW!ORGANIZE A PANEL!

Julio Huato juliohuato at gmail.com
Sun Jul 13 16:53:48 PDT 2008


Miles wrote:


> 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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list