[lbo-talk] Fw: Concerning your submission to *Science & Society*

[Miles Jackson]

Jim Farmelant wrote:
> A statement, which as far as these things go,
> is pretty much a common place in the philosophy
> of science.  There are certainly plenty of
> examples in the history of science of
> theories continuing to be widely accepted
> by scientists despite their inconsistencies
> with empirical data because at the time
> there were no good alternative theories
> to replace them.  So I think Laibman
> does have a point here,
>
> Jim F.
>   

Not so much.  If a theory is refuted time and again by evidence, it 
should be discarded.  It doesn't matter how many theories there are to 
replace it.  A good scientific theory is consistent with the available 
evidence.  If there is no well-supported theory in a particular field of 
study at a particular time, that's not the end of the world; it just 
means we have some creative theorizing to do.

And if it makes you feel better, here's an alternative theory to replace 
the theory of efficient markets: Markets do not efficiently allocate 
resources; rather, they are a mechanism to ensure the concentration of 
wealth and power in a society.  I know Laibman probably doesn't think 
that's a "good alternative theory", but that's his subjective judgment 
based on economic dogma rather than evidence.

Bottom line: there are always lots of theories we can generate to 
replace a theory this is repeatedly refuted by data, so Laibman's point 
is--beside the point.

Miles