Having dropped a snide remark about "label thinking", it would be
unseemly for me to quibble about the precise one now applied to scientific
methodology. Provided it means testing against reality rather than pure
untested deductions, then I am happy. If I stand corrected, so be
it, it does not affect the thrust of my argument. But I do
hope Keith's source is not an anti-evolutionist "scientist" from a
US mid-western college.
If you haven't heard of Ernst Mayr,
you probably have heard of Google. Give it a try.
And scientists are regularly running tests of Einstein's work in space
experiments etc.
Anyone who isn't sure what we are talking about could get an
excellent indication from either of two sources: a. The US Biological
Science Curriculum Studies "blue version", "Molecules to Man", about
1970, or b. the Sherlock Holmes stories. The first undoubtedly contained
it in the first chapter of the book as a reaction to "put downs" from physical
sicentists about our "imprecise sciences"; someone else may care
to guess at Conan Doyle's motivation.
And Keith does not have to look forward to empirical tests, because
Vic Bridger's excellent contributions contain many examples where predictioins
based on the Douglas analysis have proved correct.
Where did I say that I wanted
empirical tests? I am quite content with what I understand of Douglas'
deductive apparatus--which I am pretty sure had empirical foundations in his
own thinking. My comments were about where I conceive empirical effort to have
the greatest potential impact for promoting the policy.
But I will mention again the stagflation problem if he wishes one
scrap.
Finally, may I bring up the totally invented story of the motorist who went
to an economist mechanic when his car stalled. Mechanic DEDUCED from the
symptoms that the fault was certainly electrical and replaced the whole
ignition system. And the car still didn't go. So, several hundred
dollars poorer, the motorist went down the street to the Socred
mechanic, who thought "Looks like an electrical fault, but I'll
check". Checking a spark plug, which had a beautiful blue spark SUGGESTED
(didn't prove) that his first hypothesis was wrong. So he took the
alternative one, that the fuel system was faulty, and behold, no
fuel was reaching the motor. So his next hypothesis was a line blockage,
but being truly (INDUCTIVE, or ..) he dipped the tank, to find it was
empty, and had to ditch that one too. Being knowledgeable, he
asked the motorist if he could have been misled by a fuel gauge permanently
showing "full"? To leave out the next hypothesis and cut the story a bit
shorter, he soldered up the broken lead from the tank unit to it and charged
the motorist about ten dollars before he went off happily. (It really
was an electrical fault, but not the one DEDUCED by the first operator.)
What point are you trying to make by reciting this
example of the bitter humor of a self-satisfied, political-religious minority
who is certain that they have THE truth of the universe and also that they are
totally misunderstood and persecuted by the ignorant and hostile mass of
everyone else? The only point you have in fact made is that you
perceive yourself to be among one of those groups.
Before someone tells me modern cars have computers and different
methodology, I'll agree. But from the point of view of a typical
do-it-yourself Kiwi working on the wonderful old Chrysler Valiants
formerly produced in Australasia, it is dead accurate.
The only message I can infer from this (above) is that
social crediters are the only sociologists who know how to work like a good
mechanic. Is that what you mean?
For the first situation in it, (first situation
in what? I don't get the drift here.) perhaps one could substitute the
"trickle down" theory associated with the modern monetarist approach to
economics? You won't get any reaction from me by
criticizing "standard" economics, because I have no defensive feelings about
it--or much interest in it. On the other hand, I do have an aversion to
joining in with jeering mobs. If you or other believers find my comments
critical, you should not infer that they are directed against Douglas or his
analyses. Interpret them instead as a critique of your merchandising
technique.
John R.
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
