Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[Poopadoop]

This is how assumptions work. They are not explanations of natural phenomena.

You're missing the point. If Science argued that gravity exists because it exists, you'd say that was a bad argument. But economists say 'people behave how they behave because their brain makes them do that'. It's meaningless.

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.

They assume this because there's no reason to think otherwise. Saying 'you can't assume what you is true today will still be true tomorrow' is a silly argument like saying 'you can't prove there's no God'. On a philosophical level, you can't prove anything. But you can prove things with a reasonable degree of certainty. So your original argument that science has no basis for assuming constancy in nature is bullshit, especially when you try to use that argument to justify the circularity of economic 'laws'. You're just obfuscating the issue.

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.

It's not an assumption it's a truism.

I don't have a distaste for the field, I just think it's a tricky business to model something so complicated as human behavior. What I have a problem with is the lack of humility that many economists seem to have. A lot of them seem smugly convinced they have it right and the rest have it wrong.

[wufwugy]

especially when you try to use that argument to justify the circularity of economic 'laws'.

I'm going to stop you here. Please reread the things I've said. This topic has nothing to do with economic laws.

Too often these things are two people talking about entirely different things.

[Poopadoop]

I'm going to stop you here. Please reread the things I've said. This topic has nothing to do with economic laws.

Ok let's go back to the start. Here's what you said about the idea of rationality in economics:

The whole thing is circular, but that's okay since it's a base assumption.

This is where your wrong. You're saying that it's ok to begin with an assumption along the lines of "people do things because they want something. Otherwise, their brain wouldn't make them do it." I'm saying it's not ok to begin with that assumption.

And then you tried to justify it by saying it's comparable to what happens in Science:

For example, a base assumption of science is that phenomena are repeatable. If we attempt to rationalize why we use this assumption, the explanation is circular.

And I'm saying it's not comparable at all. Science has good reasons for assuming constancy in nature, whether or not it can be proven on a philosophical level. It's not a circular argument like the economic one is - it doesn't say 'there's constancy in nature because things don't change' (which would be circular), it says 'there's constancy in nature', full stop.

So neither of your arguments hold up.

[wufwugy]

Ok let's go back to the start. Here's what you said about the idea of rationality in economics:



This is where your wrong. You're saying that it's ok to begin with an assumption along the lines of "people do things because they want something. Otherwise, their brain wouldn't make them do it." I'm saying it's not ok to begin with that assumption.

And then you tried to justify it by saying it's comparable to what happens in Science:



And I'm saying it's not comparable at all. Science has good reasons for assuming constancy in nature, whether or not it can be proven on a philosophical level. It's not a circular argument like the economic one is - it doesn't say 'there's constancy in nature because things don't change' (which would be circular), it says 'there's constancy in nature', full stop.

So neither of your arguments hold up.

Science has good reasons for assuming humans maximize utility.

If one were to dissect the "constancy in nature" assumption and look for explanations, it would include "because things don't change." Economists spend very little time trying to explain why they use the assumptions they do. I started trying to explain it because there is some big history on this board of attacking economics because "clearly people aren't rational therefore economics is wrong." I agree that people aren't rational. The assumption of rationality is talking about something else though, and the argument that economics doesn't address irrationality is false.

[Poopadoop]

Science has good reasons for assuming humans maximize utility.

The problem is you can define 'utility' along a number of dimensions, be it money, pride, self-respect, etc., and then assign different weights to those dimensions that will allow you to explain anything. In this sense, it's unfalsifiable.

Having a theory that's unfalsifiable is not the same as having a theory that has good evidence for it. The existence of God is unfalsifiable; that doesn't mean there's good evidence for it.

If one were to dissect the "constancy in nature" assumption and look for explanations, it would include "because things don't change."

No it would not. You've created that circular argument in your own head and are trying to ascribe it to scientists.

Scientists believe in constancy in nature because the available evidence strongly supports it. Further, unlike the rationality argument, it's falsifiable. If gravity went all wonky and upside-down tomorrow, a cat suddenly changed into an airplane, and argon bonded with neon, we have to discard the constancy assumption.

What would make an economist discard the maximizing utility assumption?

[wufwugy]

The problem is you can define 'utility' along a number of dimensions, be it money, pride, self-respect, etc., and then assign different weights to those dimensions that will allow you to explain anything. In this sense, it's unfalsifiable.

Having a theory that's unfalsifiable is not the same as having a theory that has good evidence for it. The existence of God is unfalsifiable; that doesn't mean there's good evidence for it.

Assumptions aren't theories. Assumptions are all non-falsifiable.

Scientists believe in constancy in nature because the available evidence strongly supports it.

And why would the supporting evidence be supporting? Because of constancy in nature. Circular. Not falsifiable.

If gravity went all wonky and upside-down tomorrow, a cat suddenly changed into an airplane, and argon bonded with neon, we have to discard the constancy assumption.

These wouldn't void the constancy assumption. These would change theory and law. The constancy assumption can't be voided since doing so relies on the constancy assumption.

What would make an economist discard the maximizing utility assumption?

If I knew that I would win a Nobel.

[Poopadoop]

Assumptions aren't theories. Assumptions are all non-falsifiable.

Assumptions are the building blocks of theories. If your assumption is shit, your theory is also likely to be shit.

And why would the supporting evidence be supporting? Because of constancy in nature. Circular. Not falsifiable.

Sure whatever.

These wouldn't void the constancy assumption. These would change theory and law. The constancy assumption can't be voided since doing so relies on the constancy assumption.

They would prove the assumption false and require the theory to rethink it's assumptions.