I have been following the thread courtesy
of Wilde. Ran says below, “We
have the abomination of NAIRU - the "non-accelerating inflation rate of
unemployment." But from their perspective it is not an abomination,
for they actually believe in the theory.”
I am a scientist
(biologist and biological philosopher) with graduate and post-graduate
degrees. I am intrigued with Ryan’s depiction of theory. I know what I
mean by a theory, but I suspect that Economists mean something quite different.
I give the following
as the simplest overview of theory that I know.
If you wish
to read the whole article please go to:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/science-edu/Myths%20of%20Science.pdf
McComas, William,
Ten myths of science, Vol. 96, School Science & Mathematics, 01-01-1996, pp
10.
TEN MYTHS OF
SCIENCE: REEXAMINING WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW...
W. McComas 1996
Myth 1: Hypotheses
Become Theories Which Become Laws
Myth 2: A Hypothesis
is an Educated Guess
Myth 3: A General
and Universal Scientific Method Exists
Myth 4: Evidence
Accumulated Carefully Will Result in Sure Knowledge
Myth 5: Science and
its Methods Provide Absolute Proof
Myth 6: Science Is
Procedural More Than Creative
Myth 7: Science and
its Methods Can Answer All Questions.
Myth 8. Scientists
are Particularly Objective
Myth 9: Experiments
are the Principle Route
to Scientific Knowledge
Myth 10: All Work in
Science is Reviewed to Keep the Process Honest.
Given these
ideas, I have a problem with the idea that one “believes in a theory”.
A good theory is a summary of knowledge and a generator of novel experiments.
It is not an article of faith. Perhaps economists might do better to give up
faith in economic concepts.
Michael
Dr. Michael T.
Caley
Mountain Water
Wellness, Inc
Shan Shui Yao/Le
780-995-6555
Live
well! Love much! Laugh often!
Work
like you don't need money,
Love
like you've never been hurt,
Dance
like no one is watching.
From: Keith Wilde
[mailto:keithwilde@sympatico.ca]
Sent: July 1, 2006 5:21 AM
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Cc: Michael Caley
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
statistics
Bill's comments below seem unexceptionable to me. They
nevertheless leave unanswered my persisting question about the role, and
especially the provision
of the National Credit Authority as a necessarily government function (a kind
of natural monopoly as Bill has already suggested). I often get the impression
that the Douglas philosophy entails the elimination of government, but when it
comes down to issues of implementation there is clearly no escaping the
necessity of some
government functions. The question then is just which functions should
disappear in a Social Credit perspective on ideal social organization?
Which ones would just naturally wither away if the Social Credit
monetary-financial reforms were implemented, or could they be implemented at all
without a very substantial hacking up and revamping of existing governance
mechanisms?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:37 AM
Subject: [socialcredit] statistics
> Joe asks: "If this is so, then some of the
concerns
> often expressed about 'exactness', and 'the size of
> the bureaucracy' and 'the volume of statistics' that
> might be necessary to try to obtain it, would be
> rather moot, wouldn't they?"
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, it goes to the fact that statistics are not
> absolute measurements of anything. Certain statistics
> are chosen as triggers for policy implementation.
>
> Take the case of the Phillips Curve which is utilized
> for determining financial policy by the central banks.
> Couple that with the theory that the economy is at
> best in a state of quite unstable equilibrium. You
> then have the justification for keeping the economy in
> a condition of permanent underperformance, from our
> perspective. Which requires very precise statistics
> and continuous "fine tuning," lest it spiral "out of
> control."
>
> We have the abomination of NAIRU - the "non-
> accelerating inflation rate of unemployment." But
> from their perspective it is not an abomination, for
> they actually believe in the theory. You know that I
> maintain that most things we don't agree with are
> caused by incompetence, not conspiracy. And
> conspiracy is merely the pejorative for group activity
> we don't like.
>
> Interest rates are being engineered upward,
> "seventeen" rate increases in the past two years, we
> have been informed. Because the statistics indicated
> that "inflation" was inching upward, and increasing
> rates would "cool" the economy, which most certainly
> it is doing. The statistics definitely show that the
> rate of bankruptcy is increasing, and "employment" is
> falling, exactly what they and we expected.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
>
You're subscribed to this list with the email keithwilde@sympatico.ca
>
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
