*** The official market and government thread ***

[wufwugy]

The scientific method is still an assumption.

This goes back to how we simply can't prove things.

Even if rational choice theory is wrong (it most assuredly is, just like how the best theories in other sciences are also wrong), any other counter assumption would be as well. Every use of the scientific method so far has backed the assumption embedded in rational choice theory. That's just not the end of the story.

The silly thing about all this is that it doesn't matter. When economists use the word "rationality", they do not mean it the way people do colloquially and they do not use it while precluding irrationality.

And it's why I like Behavioral Economics. Because they look like their trying to model people first. How do they act, how do they choose and how can we model it?

Economics is all about this. A lot of behavioral economics is specious at this point (Ariely is a psychologist, not economist). There is probably some value somewhere from bringing new perspectives. But it is not true that behavioralism in economics is new and unique. Nor is it true of experimentation.

[a500lbgorilla]

The scientific method is still an assumption.

This goes back to how we simply can't prove things.

Even if rational choice theory is wrong (it most assuredly is, just like how the best theories in other sciences are also wrong), any other counter assumption would be as well. Every use of the scientific method so far has backed the assumption embedded in rational choice theory. That's just not the end of the story.

The silly thing about all this is that it doesn't matter. When economists use the word "rationality", they do not mean it the way people do colloquially and they do not use it while precluding irrationality.



Economics is all about this. A lot of behavioral economics is specious at this point (Ariely is a psychologist, not economist). There is probably some value somewhere from bringing new perspectives. But it is not true that behavioralism in economics is new and unique. Nor is it true of experimentation.

Because its tautological. No human action can ever escape the description, "well, he was maximizing SOMETHING!"

[wufwugy]

Because its tautological. No human action can ever escape the description, "well, he was maximizing SOMETHING!"

I meant it similarly to how every use of the scientific method has backed the existence of gravity, but we still have to assume all sorts of things to take calculations using gravity as veracious

And what do you mean by the scientific method is an assumption?

That it's a sound tool is an assumption. We can't prove the veracity of the scientific method even though every ounce of evidence we have supports that stance. We can't even prove the veracity of evidence, or the veracity of the idea of veracity. No matter how many layers are cut away, there is still that one layer that we have to assume.

It should also be noted that it's not unreasonable to assume it could be true that the scientific method is not sound for all things in existence. It could be the case that something can be true but not measurable or repeatable, for example.