--- john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given reasonable assumptions > (axioms), does that mean that economic findings are > valid without being 'scientific,' i.e. rigoriously > tested?
If the logic is valid and the premises true, then the conclusion is sound and therefore fully scientific. "Scientific" should not be equated with "tested". For example, the law of diminishing returns is scientific in being true, even if one does not test for it. Indeed, that law is so scientific that if one tested it and found that the outcome was inconsistent with that law, one would question the data before one would question the law. > It seems to me yes, but when data doesn't > match theory, one must search for new or modified > axioms. Thoughts on that? If it is a general theory that has already been warranted, one would first examine the data and testing methods. But if it is a hypothesis about something specific, such as the consequences of the euro, then when the data rejects the hypothesis, one would search for a new one. > I still maintain that Bunge's ridiculous assertion > that economics assumes greed/money as the only human > motivator is held by most people. How do you know? *That* is an example of a hypothesis that needs testing. > I think it could be > addressed by including the definition of rationality > as the structure of preferences rather than the > content of preferences in basic economics education. Agreed. And also, rationality has to do with the choice of means in the pursuit of ends, namely economizing or optimizing. Fred Foldvary ===== [EMAIL PROTECTED]
