Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
No, it's a problem because it's meaningless. For any given behavior you, you just say 'that's what they wanted, therefore it was rational' . Doesn't mean you've done a good job of explaining it or that you'll be any better at predicting it in the future, because you still haven't answered why it happened except to say 'it happened because it was meant to happen'.
This is how assumptions work. They are not explanations of natural phenomena.



That assumption isn't circular, it's just plain true. Gravity is the same today as it was yesterday. 2+2 equals four no matter how many times you test it. Constancy in the laws of nature is a good assumption to have because it holds up to scrutiny. Even more importantly, it allows us to make predictions.
Those examples aren't assumptions. Assumptions aren't about holding up to scrutiny. They're about that which can't be scrutinized in the first place.

It has not and cannot be demonstrated that the laws of physics won't change tomorrow. Scientists assume they won't.


I'm happy to go along with all that, but it still leads to the problem of being a truism - people do things because their brain makes them do things. That's not a great insight, or anything to base a discipline on. It really explains nothing.
It's not supposed to be an insight. Assumptions are what we use when there is no known way to get any deeper. Assumptions provide a framework from which science can be conducted.

Ok, so teach me - what does economics do that isn't based on bullshit?
You're not alone in your distaste for the field. It is a very hard pill to swallow, which helps explain why so many economists believe some incorrect things based on their politics and public opinion for which there is virtually no evidence and are contradicted by the literature.