|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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?
|
Reply With Quote