>>You have a very EXPANSIVE view of what science is. That's good because
then you don't have to waste a lot of time arguing what science is and
is not. I'm more of the Lakatos and Feyerabend modes of thinking about
the matter. <<
Actually now that I think about that, one, I seemed to have slipped
>>CB: Not to be cute, but isn't economics the science of supply and
distribution of goods ?<<
I'm wondering now how to capture 'services' in my use of the term
'logistics', since so much seems to be dependent on them. I guess
logistics is supposed to be the management of such economies. But then
a
