good, we agree. (I should note that skepticism has never been the whole story of how science works. There's also respect for the work and ideas of other scientists. When the other dominates, dogmatism can set in. But if skepticism totally dominates, there can be chaos.)
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Bill O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Bill O'Connor wrote: >>> A minimal first step would be to remove the "science" from "dismal >>> science". No other discipline I've ever heard of prided itself on >>> ignoring empirical data that refutes its theories. There are notable >>> exceptions, but not enough for me. >> >> Are you saying that the official economics profession isn't truly >> scientific? I agree. Whether we drop the word "science" from the >> field's name or not, scientific thinking seems absolutely necessary. > > Yes, that's what I'm saying. Scoffing at economists calling themselves > scientists is just my way of throwing some cold water in their faces. > If you sniff your nose at evidence that refutes your models, you're not > a scientist. The lowliest apprentice laborer has more sense/humility > than that. > >> what is "scientific thinking"? crucially, it involves skepticism and >> the willingness to look at things from new points of view and to >> consider new evidence. > > I take a guess. > I try it out. > It work, I'm right. It doesn't work, I'm wrong. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
