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