Hmm, this is ridiculous. Every person who goes through a serious education in economics knows of the fallacies that you can arrive at by only "thinking" with c

Hmm, this is ridiculous. Every person who goes through a serious education in economics knows of the fallacies that you can arrive at by only "thinking" with complete, dry rationality. In fact we have two terms for it: Positive Economics: "What is" Normative Economics: "What ought to be" The majority of focus stays inside of positive economics because the "What is" analysis leads to a much higher amount objective results. It keeps the fucking "opinion" out of it (or at least attempts to at a much greater degree). Case and points: 1. All economists are aware of going down the dead-dry rational rabbit hole; In fact, he points this out in the last paragraph by quoting one of the greatest ones. 2. Most fields lack the level of objectivity and mathematical proofing that economics contains; Bringing that power over to other fields is beneficial. 3. Making a blanket statement that all economists approach things in a blanket statement manner, in and of itself makes this article ridiculous. Someone start a blog called "Learning Economics." The only people who oppose it so heavily are often the ones who don't understand it enough.