Re: Tomas Palley on China

[ravi <listmail@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At around 13/12/05 4:51 pm, Doug Henwood wrote:
> raghu wrote:
>
>>  How does one interpret Stephen
>> Roach's "40% risk of a hard landing in 2006"? Does it have scientific
>> validity in the sense of being a refutable prediction? Clearly not.
>> (It is
>> impossible to verify even with hindsight that this number (40%) is the
>> right number.)
>>
>> All Roach is saying is "there may or may not be a hard landing in 2006".
>> Which is not all that informative really.
>
> It's a quantitative way of saying the odds are strong, but not
> overwhelming. A noneconomist would probably say a "decent chance."
>

See:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/

Also see Carnap's (he has an entire book on the matter, but also covers
it in the first part of Intro to Phil of Science) and von Mises' works.

        --ravi


--
If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by
substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!