|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
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:
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
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:
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
|