One "Counter Example" Does not Disprove a Body of Knowledge

I use quotes around "counter example" because often times a "counter examples" asserted by the laity is in fact not a counter example but a confirmation of the theory. Consider air travel. The design of aircraft is governed by the body of knowledge, both experimental and experientially, that describes the laws of aerodynamics, properties of materials, and gravity, etc. A thriving air travel industry has been built on the knowledge base. Now, the critic would present an airplane crash as "proof" that the theories on aerodynamics, properties of materials, and gravity are wrong. For simplicity, let's assume such a crash was the result of a structural failure in the wing. The thing is this doesn't disprove the body of knowledge but rather confirms it. The structural failure would have occurred as understood with known principles of materials properties and structural engineering, thus confirming this knowledge base, not contradicting. And one the wing had failed, the aircraft aerodynamics would be such that they could no longer counter the force of gravity, thus the plane crash is a confirmation of the laws of aerodynamics and gravity, not contradiction. The crash is a confirmation of this knowledge base, not a contradiction, because the existing knowledge base explains why and how this occurred. This is why we don't scrap the air travel industry as being based on "misguided" aerodynamics and such every time a plane crashes.

Now lets turn our attention to a current popular "contradictory example" for market economics, the failure of GM. Quite simply let's revisit one of the key principles of competitive free market economics. That is that any producer that cannot compete against other producers in a market governed by the prevailing supply and demand conditions will necessarily be forced out of the market to make room for the produces who have a more effective and efficient business model and thus better able to serve the interests of the market. In this case, the failure of GM is not in contraction but exact accordance and confirmation with market theories. GM became bloated, ineffective, and inefficient and could not operate as effective and efficient a business as, for example, Toyota. Thus, had things been allowed to progress naturally, more effective companies such as Toyota would have displaced an uncompetitive GM in the auto market. This process is explicitly why western auto manufactures produce a higher caliber of product than communist block auto manufacturers are capable of. In the free market, the market undergoes continual evolution with the result being ever more advanced product, at higher qualities, and at reduced prices. On the other hand, and this is key, in communist block countries, there is neither the incentive, as there is no opportunity for profit, nor is there a mechanism, as all production is run by the government, for someone with a better way of doing things that advances the product and makes it less expensive to displace the laggards. In the specific case of GM, that company was incapable of evolving its product focus as business model as were companies such as Toyota with the result being that they were incapable of surviving in the market. Companies such as Toyota were better able to serve the market than was GM, with the result being the GM was dying off to make way for other companies that were more capable of serving the market.