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

[Miles Jackson]

Julio Huato wrote:
> 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.
>   
Well, they can call it a duck for all I care, as long as they don't call 
it science!

Miles