Demanding proof before continuing a discussion is a way to avoid discussions, not elevate people's understanding of a topic. Many people here do not have the same knowledge of the topic and may simply agree with the first theory that makes logical sense to them if no other data is presented.
Being that this is an internet forum, where people come to discuss things, there is no harm in preemptively presenting evidence to show why Forrester is wrong. There is nothing at stake here.
If he is wrong, it should be fairly trivial to find evidence showing why. I personally await this evidence because I find Forrester's model to be sound.
'If he is wrong, it should be fairly trivial to find evidence showing why. I personally await this evidence because I find Forrester's model to be sound.'
Why on earth would that be trivial? The social sciences have existed for a hundred years, yet there are few - if any - non-trivial law-like generalisations about the social world.
Being that this is an internet forum, where people come to discuss things, there is no harm in preemptively presenting evidence to show why Forrester is wrong. There is nothing at stake here.
If he is wrong, it should be fairly trivial to find evidence showing why. I personally await this evidence because I find Forrester's model to be sound.