|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
|
Reply With Quote
