Thanks for that, Bill.
Once again, the confusion between Douglas observations of industries and the
application to the economy as a whole is apparent. Failure to fully appreciate
the importance of the "jump" between the two has lead to untold confusion.
A+B in relation to industries was not hypothetical but factual observation. As
you say, ananalytical argument in favour of the hypothesis, "That the shortage of
purchasing power TENDS to apply to the whole economy". Not that it always
applies, because, as Douglas pointed out, the "gap" could be filled by
expenditure on new industries, armaments etc. Incidentally, the hypolthesis
would now apply as a theory in scientific terms, having sufficient support to
rank as such. If economists had adopted it they would have dignified it as a
"law", along with other much less sound propositions.
You are confused about Baconian inductive scientific reasoning, which consists
of testing hypotheses or predictions based on them against further observations,
i.e. facts. I have given references for full explanations of this previously. It
can "prove" nothing, but it certainly can disprove, and that is easily
demonstrable in relation to the orthodox opposits, the only alternative.
Waffling about possible causes of the "gap" Douglas demonstrated have no
purpose whatever towards testing the validity of the argument, except that they
might suggest avenues for correcting the problem. They are far too open to
endless argument. Methods of this nature are what prevented the wonderfully
intelligent Greek and other civilisations from developing hard practical science,
and they have certainly confused projection of Social Credit for decades.
Regards. John R.
From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject:
[socialcredit] Rawson's complaint
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:47:22 -0800
(PST)
>But, John, A+B is not a hypothesis but an analytical
>argument in support of a
hypothesis, from the time
>Douglas first presented it *Credit-Power
and
>Democracy.*
>
>It also seems to me that you are proposing two
>different
things here: "testing it against reality"
>and testing it by "inductive
scientific reasoning."
>
>"It" being the underlying hypothesis to A + B.
>
>For
the record, please state what you think that
>underlying hypothesis might
be.
>
>
>--- John G Rawson <johngrawson@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Greetings for
2007.
>
>Might I suggest that Social Credit ceased to be a
>science before the
1930's, whenever Douglas'
>supporters started trying to "prove" the
hypothesis
>(A+B) instead of testing it against reality, along the
>lines this
correspondence has been heading and others.
>
>
>All that is necessary to remedy
the situation is to
>take it in its true context, as a scientific model,
>and
test it (and its orthodox opposite) by inductive
>scientific reasoning.
>
>But,
of course, those with vested interests in the
>present financial racket will do
their utmost to
>prevent this happening, won't they?
>
>I agree that this forum
is fulfilling its aim of
>"studying the works of Douglas", but I believe it
has
>no useful function whatever in promoting his message
>to others.
Again, I agree that the later is not its
>function, but I think others should
also ber aware of
>that.
>
>John
R.
>
>__________________________________________________
>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 johngrawson@hotmail.com
>For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
