Which is fine, as long as your assumptions are good models of reality. When your assumptions are essentially articles of faith your models tend to be about as good as the guys who interpret patterns in chicken bones.

You need assumptions exactly for the things which cannot be tested against reality. Otherwise why assume rather than measure?

> Otherwise why assume rather than measure?

You need a model to design an experiment.

This is how all science is done. You hypothesize. Then experiment.

Sure, that does not mean all models are equal.

Economics both describe and prescribe, so those models should be evaluated on their predictive power and on whether they have actually done any good.

> that does not mean all models are equal

Sure. Nobody claimed that. I’m just pointing out that being upset that a model makes assumptions is nonsense.

We are questioning the assumptions themselves, not the act of making them.

(I don't feel like anyone is upset?)