The author writes, >Paul Samuelson once famously claimed that the “ergodic hypothesis” is essential for advancing economics from the realm of history to the re

The author writes, >Paul Samuelson once famously claimed that the “ergodic hypothesis” is essential for advancing economics from the realm of history to the realm of science. It's curious that science and history are pitted against each other; not only is science notoriously difficult to define, but there are several historical approaches to scientific objects (e.g archaeology for the object of human history). This also seems to involve a logical model in which the concepts stay static, but some popular models outside of mainstream economics are used because the authors argue that an approach divorced from real development leads to results that don't apply to real situations (e.g. the dialectical logical method, which is both syntactic and semantic. Unfortunately the sort of logic Samuelson applies has been misapplied (in neo-Ricardian lenses) to thinkers which seem to hold strictly temporal (rather than equilibrium) interpretations of economy.