Quote:
Originally Posted by peragro
I have always heard that mathematics is the language of science.
|
That's roughly what I've heard. It's indespensible for physics and astronomy, for starters. And thought experiments have validity, particularly in math.
Nonetheless, I don't see much point in the distinction. My original point was that any attempt to cram the workings of the real world, involving numerous, infinite opportunities for human error or eccentricity, into a theory of how economics should work best is not likely to be successful.
And while I'm holding up Webster and crew, one of the definitions of 'rebut'
is to expose the falcity of. It doesn't appear to be limited to that:
rebut: to contradict, refute, or oppose, espcially in a formal manner, by arguement, proof, etc., as in a debate.