Retorts

More Fetishes

John Peet [July] claims that, contrary to Rodney Hide [April], Popper "pointed out" that it is not "testability" that is important, but "refutability". Peet should re-read his Popper.

In Conjectures and Refutations Popper says "One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability or testability."

Blaug's argument (quoted by Peet) that prediction necessarily involves verification and rejects falsification is surely curious. After all Einstein's predictions of the consequences of the bending of light as it passed the sun are generally regarded as a magnificent confirmation of his Theory of Relativity. Popper makes the point that confirmation is legitimate if it is a genuine and risky test of a theory. The test of Einstein's theory measures up on both counts. Popper's arguments are subtle and should not be swung like baseball bats to bruise ideological enemies.

[Contrary to your correspondent Stewart's assertion], the price-demand equation does hold up across cultural boundaries. Eskimos who refuse to pay a high price for refrigerators are simply responding to the laws of biology and physics. Reduce the price sufficiently and even Eskimos will buy them to use as cupboards.

Stewart then goes on to blame consumption-led growth for the disadvantaged "placed in that position by the mindless application of market forces". The majority of the poor in the world are in that position because of the mindless -- or pseudo-scientific Marxist -- rejection of market forces. Market economies -- like democracy -- may not be perfect but they beat the alternatives hands down.

Popper predicts all of this in his other works such as The Poverty of Historicism and The Open Society and its Enemies. From a reading of these works one would expect the scientific community to be defenders of the Open Society which is characterised by democratic, market-led economies, operating within a culture founded on the scientific method. Sadly, and presumably because so many scientists have come to depend on public funding, we find that far from appearing to defend the Open Society they tend to line up with its enemies.

Most of us are now convinced that apocalyptic Marxism is an empty cause. Many scientists seem to have abandoned this form of pseudo-science in favour of the latest excuse for centralised power in the hands of a pseudo-scientific elite which goes by the name of apocalyptic environmentalism. After all what "ozone depletion" and what "global warming" and what "resource depletion"?

Priests used to serve a function by predicting that the end of the world was near. Kings would then take steps to prevent it. When nothing happened both claimed the credit for averting catastrophe. Things change and things remain the same. Those scientists who endorsed The Limits to Growth should re-read it and die of shame and embarrassment.

Owen McShane, Auckland