|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
As far as what the assumptions entail, all I can think of is that they allow people to engage the scientific process without providing what would be interpreted as nonsensical results.
Quantum tunneling seems nonsensical. A thing cannot be where it doesn't have enough energy to get to.
But that's actually the nonsense right there.
The fact is that quantum tunneling is real, and not nonsense, and once one liberates their mind from the constraints telling it (their mind) what to see and just let it see, this is clear. Once you see direct evidence of quantum tunneling, you have only the choice to ignore your observations or accept them. To me, the choice of ignorance seems the more nonsensical of the two choices.
If the interpretation is that the result is nonsensical then either the result is nonsensical, or the people saying so are refusing to believe what they have observed. Or they are being told something without any personal observation and they're right to be dubious, at least until they are provided with a means of observing.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
One can't even do the scientific method unless one assumes things like consistency of phenomena.
I strongly disagree.
The scientific method does not assume consistency of phenomena; it reveals consistency of phenomena; it ignores inconsistent phenomena. It does not stipulate that all phenomena are consistent. It doesn't even stipulate that the scientific method is the best method.
It just says, "I am a method which seems to work pretty well at helping humans to assemble a set of statements which are 'true,'" in the sense that we can make predictions about the future of certain things in the real world and play fun games on our cell phones.
I do agree that one cannot really have any faith in the predictive power of scientific results if one does not believe in consistency of phenomena. That said, how many times do you need to see a prediction come true before you start to question this hold-out position you have espoused on consistency? I'd think at the very least, you might come to the conclusion that, while consistency hasn't been proved (as such), it does seem to allow us to make cool toys if we pretend that the consistency we think we know is at least going to keep up for a few more years.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There are a handful of base assumptions in economics that allow people to evaluate findings and construct theories that make sense.
What are the other base assumptions along with "People are rational actors?"
What are the strongest theories in economics and what evidence is used to support them?
What would constitute a valid counter-example to refute these ideas?
|
Reply With Quote