Twitterpatted
Rather that try and prove or disprove economics,I don't dispute that economics is a valuable discipline. What I take issue with is that it's not a Scientific Discipline.
when new evidence pops up that disproves something, like the Phillips Curve and the 1970's, economists try to explain it in terms of the original theory.Friedman (and the Chicago Classic School) explains everything in terms of Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve. The Keynesians explain everything in terms of government surpluses and deficits (pump-priming). The Supply Siders explian everything in terms of Tax Cuts. The Marxists explain everything in terms of Capital and Labour classes. The Phillips curve explains everything in terms of Supply and Demand (which by the way assumes perfect competition).
Now if you want to argue the strengths and weaknesses of these economic theories, I'd be happy to oblige. But don't try to pass the theories off as scientific. Each contains valuable information and is useful within certain limits, but using any of them to try to disprove possible Saudi complicity in the events surrounding 9/11 are a stretch.
Rather that try and prove or disprove economics, if you are correct, then all of the politicians in the Democratic and Republican parties are unscientific when they use economic theories to try and help along the economy.Here comes the science? I should think that your rhetorical statement not only goes without saying, it's self-evident to anyone who knows anything about either (a) Politics; or (b) Economics.
Or let's put it in understandable terms. Let's say that the Republicrates and Democans are being scientific about their economic planks. How do you come up with the fact that an objective discipline like economics can come to opposite conclusions? Science proposes objectivity, yet subjectivity in the interpretation of the data is exactly why two seemingly paradoxical results can arise from economics.
Or to throw in the economic jokes: If you put three economists in a room, you'll wind up with four opinions.
Or was it the one where the best economists only have one arm? That way that can't be constantly waffling about On The Other Hand.
Amazing when I did a "The philosophy of science" search on Wikipedia,And why is that an amazing fact? Does every graduate or undergraduate text automatically show up with an opinion on Wikipedia. I gave the link on Amazon, that's where you should start your investigation.
Actually the fact that it was in this particular book was incidental. The thing was that the book is merely a collection of famous and not so famous papers that deal with the Philosophy of Science. The one particular that I was dealing with was one by British scholar [link|http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/|Karl Popper]. The particular paper I cited was one of the most influential papers in the study of philosophy over the last 100 years. Special Note for the dense - Philosophy itself is not a Science, and in particular philosophies of science is not Science.
At any rate, whether you happen to stumble across Philosphy of Science, or not, the argument should on the surface (tabula rosa, so to speak), carry the day. Economists are in the business of taking various facts and using them to support their theories. Perhaps your problem is with the word "Pseudo"? Perhaps you think that I equate economics with Alchemy, Astrology, ESP, UFO's and all the sordid affairs. I'd note that each of these has some subjective value (at some level). Alchemy resulted in some discoveries (though none of them involved gold in the end).
But that's not really the level we are talking about "Pseudo". Popper's main concern was with the Freudians and the Marxians of the world (Psychology and Economics if you prefer). Present any sort of human behavior to one of these two types and they'll be more than happy to diagnose it (some sort of anal thing, or class type thing). If the facts don't fit their interpretation, then they simply meta level the fact, and explain it away. Sooner or later, the theories become irrefutable because they are proposed in such terms as refutation is not possible.
Yet I cannot help but feel that you are using it, and thus also abusing or citing it where it is inapplicable. Thus I can logically conclude that what you have said about the Saudis, using the simpler account, could possible be false or wrong in some way.Weird convoluted logic if you ask me. Yes, what you are saying about the Saudi's could be correct. But it is not a scientific or mathematical formula. It enters into that dirty little world of things we like to call Politics, self-preservation, and yes even the economic motivation of greed.
But simply saying that the Saudis have a vested interest in the American economy (a point that I would cede), does not mean that they are not capable of performing actions which on the surface seem to be at odds with this economic motivation.
Indeed, if you want to be explicit about economics, you'd state it in terms of Profit (the great motivator). Profit as a microeconomic stimulus is much more well understood than the macroeconomic idea's of GNP. For one thing, GNP is an immeasurable concept as what constitutes Income, Imports, and Exports is purely an idea (an estimate per se). But the idea of profit is very measurable in the small.
Now, ask yourself, how does the Arab monarchy make and maintain profit for itself?
