Robin Neill asks: 
 
> 
>     What, in the History of Economics, corresponds to proof in an 
>empirical social science?  
> 
>     The simple question remains. 
 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 
 
My response is "prove what?"   Obviously, Prof Neill wants to prove that  
something is true and this means that via economics (or chemistry) we  
expect to find truth.  Proof is a means of arriving at truth and so we  
should make a list of what we have found out to be true in economics  
besides C + I + G + etc. = GDP.    
 
I would be more interested in understanding how we can in science "rule  
out" certain phenomenon.  For example, at the U.S. patent office they will  
not consider patent application for perpetual motion machines any longer  
despite the inventor's willingness to hire an attorney and tender the  
filing fee.  Imagine that! 
 
 
IN fact, it has been imagined that such a possibility is impossible. Hence  
we rule out certain possibilities because they are illogical??? or  
improbable??? or inconsistent with our teacher's intuitions???? 
 
Here is a puzzle?  If bolstering aggregate demand is so important why not  
advise third world countries to punish (i.e., tax) saving.  Can we rule out 
the claim that bolstering aggregate demand in the form of consumption  
expenditure is good for economic development? 
 
Can we rule out the claim that legislating a $50 an hour minimum wage will  
raise living standards in North Korea?   
 
If "yes" then this is the sort of argument we need to look at first. After  
that we can have an easier time engaging econometricians. 
 
 
 
Best wishes 
 
 
 
L. Moss