Again, you still refuse to present an argument against the particular comparison that I made.
The germ theory of disease was rejected by the mainstream of biology and medicine until sufficient evidence was mustered.
Darwinian natural selection was not accepted by biologists until evidence mounted.
Einstein's general relativity was not accepted until Eddington's observations of the shift of light when passing by the sun.
Economics, like all the other sciences, accepts heterodox hypotheses when those hypotheses collect sufficient empirical support.
This is not a equation of anything. This is saying that economics behaves as other sciences do with regard to new ideas.
You have refused to offer any counter argument to this. Instead you have focused on "my asinine comparison of economics and physics" which you now call "practically equating the two."
You are right. I am saying that the methodology of economics is more similar to the other sciences, especially the natural sciences that depend on observational data (like astrophysics, geology, evolution), than they are different. You have singularly failed to offer a single coherent argument against this.
Rather, your position amounts to:
1) economics hides its pro-capitalist biases in impenetrable mathematical assumptions.
2) its foundational framework is unfalsifiable.
3) Alternative, heterodox schools of economics provide better predictions than the mainstream of economics.
The problem is that not one of these claims is true. Even worse, you have not presented actual evidence for any of them. When I have demanded specific evidence for them, you have changed the subject.
What would evidence for them look like? for (1), it would be a analysis of an economic model, identification of its explicit assumptions. It would show that the explicit assumptions are not sufficient to derive the "pro-capitalist" conclusions. Rather, some "pro-capitalist" implicit assumptions is actually needed to derive the conclusions. Have you done this? No, not once.
What about for (2)? It would actually be a derivation of all possible observations from a specific economic model. You tried to do that with my monopsonistic labour market model. But, the way that you did that was by adding an ad hoc, unfalsifiable auxiliary hypothesis (the monopsonist "thinks differently"). That is to show that my economic model was unfalsifiable you had to add an unfalsifiable auxiliary hypothesis.
What about (3)? Just give me an example of a heterodox school of economics that has better predictions. It would be ideal if you identified the particular hypotheses of that heterodox school that provides better predictions and showed that those hypotheses have not been incorporated into the mainstream of economics. You have not done this.
But, I am the autistic person. I am the one that is emotional. I am the one that is partisan. I have told you what you can do to convince me that your position has merit. You have singularly refused to do those things. I am not the troll, Ben; you are.
