Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[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.