Quote:
Originally Posted by cmac2012
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 econimics 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 argument, proof, etc., as in a debate.
|
If math is to science and language is to literature then would you say language is the same as literature? Of course not! In a similar fashion, mathematics is used to communicate some scientific results. Math is not a scientific result.
There isn't a way that I can think of to rebut a thought that isn't first posed as a falsifiable hypothesis.