Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
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.