Re: Libertarian cartoons
- From: mstemper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Stemper)
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:58:42 +0000 (UTC)
In article <1149e37c-149a-4e26-abb4-332b2a1c53c8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, plausible prose man <Georgefhaley@xxxxxxx> writes:
On Aug 29, 12:09=A0pm, d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (David DeLaney) wrote:
Rick <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We're not talking about the 'creative process', or about bias towards a
particular religion, here. We're talking about scientific method, and how
economics generally doesn't have anything near what it takes to qualify for
having used it.
Why do you think that? Be specific. Provide examples.
I provide the example of
<7cbe8d07-078d-4e65-8dd8-e76dab5c54b4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
in which the usefulness of experiments to economics is disdained.
No experiments, no testable hypotheses, no science.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Libertarian cartoons
- From: plausible prose man
- Re: Libertarian cartoons
- Prev by Date: Re: Phillip Garrido: Now: Future punishment
- Next by Date: Re: Meditations on the Tragedy of Human Existence
- Previous by thread: Re: Libertarian cartoons
- Next by thread: Re: Libertarian cartoons
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|