Poking Around the Friesian Web Site

I was poking around the Friesian web site when I came across this article that jogged my memory. The topic is criticism of Poppers philosophy of science, and in particular falsification.

To put some context to the first sentence please remember that Popper himself had already assumed and explicitly addressed the issue of "explaining away falsifying evidence".

Here we have the interesting case of an actual event that falsifies Kuhn's theory of science. I'd forgotten about it.

"Kuhn's critique contains a considerable element of truth, since people, scientists included, often do just see what they want to see, and it is possible to explain away falsifying evidence. On the other hand, anomalies are often recognized that are inconvenient to a theory, and most scientists are now aware that if the theory cannot ultimately accommodate them, then a new theory will be necessary. And then there is the Great Devonian Controversy. Once all the major geologists recognized that there was no unconformity in the sequence, and that there were plants in the lower strata, there simply was no existing theory that could accommodate the facts. Thus, we had a situation that, in Kuhnian terms, was impossible. The evidence could not be interpreted to sustain any existing theoretical views.

The situation was sometimes discussed by participants in what sound like modern terms. Thus, John Phillips, professor of geology at King's College, in London, wrote to De la Beche that his discovery of certain plant fossils, "is a fact to be introduced into the induction, not an anomaly to be frightened at" [p. 223]. Here "anomaly" would mean just what it means now: Some fact inconsistent with a received or desired theory. As "Baconians," both Phillips and De la Beche think that the appropriate theories will be produced by "induction" from a sufficient catalogue of facts. Neither Kuhn nor Popper could agree with that old "Baconian" view of theories, but Kuhn and deconstructionists cannot allow that an anomaly all by itself could potentially falsify a theory, rather than vice versa. But in the Devonian Controversy, the anomalies overthrew all the theories."

Share this

"IF YOU WANNA SAVE THE

"IF YOU WANNA SAVE THE WORLD'S ECONOMY, THEN SPEND, SPEND, SPEND!"
2 Comments - Hide Original Post Collapse comments
Because we're the freest economy in the whole world, because we are both prosperous and have the lowest trade barriers, the entire world's economy depends on USA consumption; if we consume less then they sell less and the world goes into a recession.

That's why all we have to do to get the world's economy moving again is BUY BUY BUY!

Go out and buy anything you think is GOOD FOR YOU TO HAVE!

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY CALL THE STUFF YOU BUY "GOODS", ANYWAY!!?!?

It's a buyer's market out there: prices are cheap.

Take advantage of the seller's weakness AND BUY BUY BUY!

As Glenn says, "It’s up to the Retail Support Brigades, once again!"

posted by Reliapundit at 9:30 AM on Nov 28, 2008

Blogger Brian Macker said...

Just browsing around for the name "LInah Abadneh" with regard to a climate article and I came upon your web site. This was the top article at the time and I thought it was ludicrous.

The idea that consumer spending is what drives the economy is a ludicrous invention of Keynesianism.
Says law is actually correct on this.

We are in trouble right now because the FED held interest rates below their market values for around 20 years now. That's the most important problem.

That predictably caused low savings, high borrowing, asset bubbles, and a large trade deficit.

Spending and bailouts and flooding the country with currency is not the answer.

Check out the difference between Keynesian and real economics here:
http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/macro.htm

I'm not coming back to your blog to check on any response. You can get more information at www.mises.org website.

10:35 AM
Delete
Blogger Reliapundit said...

macker u iz a wacker!

1 - the fed raised rates from 2004-1007 (17 times) and that wsa MAJOR CAUSE of the crash.

they raised rates out of fear of inflation - a totally unbased fear.

2 - keynes didn't "invent" the idea that people buying things is a major driver of the economy.

it's just a fact,

wholesale purchases are less than retail.

look it up.

- the were two bubbles: real estate, and oil.

i predicted the date and dollar amount of the oil bubble burst at this blog.

i was the only one in the entire blogosphere to put it in writing, and i was right.

4 - the real estate bubble was caused by bad lending practices spurred by the CRA and Fannie Mae.

5 - the financial crisis was caused by the fannie mae paper - their deriviatives.

this was predicted by bush in 2003 and by greenspan and snow and paulson and mccain from 2003 through 2007.

the democrats blocked reform of fannie mae; therefore the democrats are chiefly responsible for the fannie mae fiasco and the ensuing financial meltdown.

5 - there is no such thiung as a "trade deficit" - the "trade deficit" is a heuristic device invented by anti-trade factions.

FACT: when a company buy goods from china - for example - they trade a money asset for a goods asset. china trades a goods asset for a money asset.

the trade is even-steven.

the trade is balanced.

china and the usa company each get exactly what they want.

if - for example - the buyer is wal-mart, they in turn sell the goods they buy from china at a profit.

so: there is no deficit.

you do not have a deficit when you go to the grocery store and buy coffee. you give the store money and get coffee.

you take money from your money asset column and replace it with coffee of the exact same monetary value and put this in your asset column.

assuming you wanted the coffee and that this is why you bought it YOU ARE AHEAD.

the concept of trade deficit was intended to discourage trade - which is truly one of the keys to economic growth and prosperity. it always has been.

domestic producers and workers don't like trade as much as consumers do. on any given good for sale there are almost always more consumers than producers' therefore competition from imports always benefits more people - as it forces improvements on the good and better value.

BOTTOM LINE: YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE AND A MORON AND A DUPE.

WAKE UP OR FUCK OFF.

WUOFU.

good entry

Somehow I missed this when you wrote it. Saw it because of the unrelated comment that just now appeared. Did you set this entry to private?

Well something good came out of that guy's raves

Also on that same web site, the Friesian one, he has an article on Say's Law. Kind of ironic this guy chose to post to this comment.

Too bad Micha didn't see this one. Him being all down on Popper.

Missed your question

The article was always public.

Blogger Reliapundit

Blogger Reliapundit said...

YOU WROTE: No wonder you have such a low level of comments. You go crazy when anyone disagrees with you.

HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU EVER READ THE BLOG.

SHEESH, YOU ARE ONE FUCKING ANNOYING MR KNOW IT ALL AND EVERY TIME YOU OPEN YOUR IDIOTIC FACE YOU PROVE IT AGAIN.

YOU WROTE: I understand that you don't understand how this occurs, and frankly you'll never understand if you keep telling your intellectual betters to "fuck off".

BETTERS?? YOU!?!?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

I GOT A MASTERS FROM A LEADING EAST COATS UNIVERSITY IN A YEAR.

FUCK OFF MORON.

I AM FORT FREE MARKETS AND IT FUCKING OUTRAGEOUS THAT YOU - WHO HAVEN'T READ THIS BLOG MUCH AND DON'T KNOW MER TELL ME WHAT I KNW AND WHAT I SUPPORT.

THIS IS WHAT ASSHOLE DOES.

YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.

I MERELY WROTE IN THIS POST THAT CONSUMERS SHOULD SPEND MONEY AND THIS WOULD HELP THE ECONOMY.

THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLE STUFF.

BUT EVIDENTLY TOO SIMPLE FOR ASSHOLES LIKE YOU.

BY THE WAY:

I AM 52 AND LIVED THOUGH NIXON AND DON'T NEED ANY FUCKING LECTURES FROM A TWIRP LIKE YOU ON HIM OR ANYTHING ELSE.

O O O O O O O ...

PLEASE: DON'T COME BACK!

I AM HAPPY TO GET MY 2000 A DAY WITHOUT YOU.

YOU LUDICROUS IDIOT.

Ludicrous Keynesianism

You can see more of this on his blog, if you have the stomach. In particular the comment where I called the idea of a consumer driven economy "a ludicrous invention of Keynesianism."

He doesn't seem to realize that what we need to do right now is to behave responsibily. Consume less and save more. That's the road to a good economy. Borrowing and spending the savings of other nations has never made a country prosperous. Especially when done via monetary inflation. Zimbabwe is the end result.

"HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU

"HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU EVER READ THE BLOG."

After your extremely nasty reply I did a simple google search to see. Turns out you call those who comment on your site morons quite a bit.

You are quite abusive in general and it bears little relationship to me since I've never commented on your site before. Doing a similar search on your use of asshole turns up a bunch of refrerences also. A specific example being this:

ChenZhen's first comment: "hmmm... I'd put this in the "things to work out before you recklessly attack" category."

Your response: "i suppose fdr should have calculated the costs of the marshall plan too, huh asshole chenzen!?!?"

His response: "Oh, and RE: asshole, Nice blogside manners there. Nothing gets the point across like some good ol' fashioned juvenile name calling, eh? For the record, I consider it to be a concession of defeat."

I'm 50 so your age doesn't impress me.

I know someone else who got their Masters in computer science in a very short time and she came up to a co-worker and asked "I don't understand something about the min() function. Does it return the first or second number when the values are equal". So you'll have to impress me with more than degrees.

What I find objectionable is your recommendation to people to "Spend, spend, spend" when what they should be doing is saving. That you are ignorant of the economic theory behind this anti-free market idea isn't my problem.

btw: i read kuhn and popper

btw: i read kuhn and popper in high school - over thirty years ago!!!

Join the Club.

Join the club

http://pajamasmedia.com/insta

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/28357/

What do you think that proves?

I'm not sure what you think that proves. The Fed just pumped $4 trillion dollars into the economy and is planning on another $3. According to good economic theory that should result in people expecting inflation and spending more than they save. Which is pretty much what they've done in response to the low interest rates. They've borrowed against rising asset prices in order to spend. That consumes capital. Which means the US will be producing less goods than it otherwise would in the future.

You should have see the mad rushes at the stores in Zimbabwe when they started pumping out the currency. Then when prices started rising they set price controls, just like Nixon. Wasn't it Nixon, who said "We are all Keynesians now!".

Lucky for us Nixon was out and Carter in and it was he who appointed Volker.