[lkrubner]

Still, one can argue with fundamental assumptions, and if those are wrong, then whole entire branches of knowledge, including decades of work by many bright individuals, comes into question.

Regarding economics, there are some fundamental assumptions that are often criticized.

For instance, in the mid 1700s, Charles Townsend asserted the fundamental laws of economics were these: 1,) Man's want, wishes, needs and desires are infinite. 2.) Resources are finite.

But numerous anthropologists have criticized these assumptions. Margaret Mead didn't see the tendency towards infinite consumption among the tribes she studied. And see Marshall Sahlins book Stone Age Economics -- he doesn't see any evidence of infinite desires among the tribes he studies. Thus it appears Townsend's assumptions are fit only for a society in the middle of the Industrial Revolution. So his "laws" are not "laws" in the same way that Issac Newton could describe "Laws Of Motion". Rather, Townsend's laws were a convenient assumption for a certain kind of society, but then the question comes up constantly, are we still the same kind of society?

Another example, Joseph Schumpeter starts one of his books (I think Das wesen und der hauptinhalt der theoretischen nationalökonomie, 1908) "The social process is one indivisble whole! However, to make useful remarks regarding production and consumption, it is reasonable to pluck from experience those transactions that are altogether economic in nature."

There are many people who strongly agree with the first sentence and therefore they can not agree with the second sentence.

I could go on, but I don't have the time.

If you go looking, you'll find many examples. In physics, no one doubts that matter and energy are real things, but in economics, it is the most fundamental assumptions of the discipline that have always been under attack.

[woodandsteel]

I agree. I think a lot of the problems with the economics profession today are due to the fact that when it was originally got established, it never properly worked out its basic assumptions. One major problem area here is thinking out the relation of economic science to the other social sciences.

In spite of such major deficiencies, economic science was very lucky and promoted the free market, which was in many ways an amazing success. As a consequence economists got the mistaken idea their science was basically sound, and never set about thinking out its basic assumptions.