if so, we agree. It's also extremely hard to disprove (or "falsify") a proposition empirically. Most propositions have "ceteris paribus" clauses which can be invoked to defend the prop.
For example, in macro, empirical evidence has seemingly destroyed the "monetarist" proposition that rapid increases in the money supply always & everywhere cause inflation (since it turns out that "velocity" is unstable and the relevant money supply changes over time, often in an endogenously-driven way). But there are some people who honestly continue to defend this proposition. (They may be honest despite their politic positions, which are bad in my perspective.) ------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 8:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor > > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:30:35 -0800, "Devine, James" > wrote: > > if the data is poorly measured, then even a case > >where > > there are no empirical counterexamples may be wrong. > > Jim D. > > But Juriaan's point is surely that propositions can > certainly be *falsified* by empirical evidence and if P > is falsified, then "it cannot be proved that P" is > proved. > > ? > > dd >
