A tale of the three economists quest for theories

Three economists make a rational (Bayesian) agent (by extrinsic teleology), then an invisible hand (extrinsic teleology), and per finality, (intrinsic teleology) an equilibrium model. 

Stage 1.

(Three economists conceive an invisible hand).

An economist (the first economist) enter a state that has an economy, but in which condition is the economy? What kind and type of economy is it?
A philosopher of science (and epistemology) asked the economist if he would believe in a persons report that an invisible hand was roaming and guiding the market, to which the economist replied no. The philosopher asked what the economist thought if two people reported the same thing, and the economist said he would begin to wonder. The philosopher then asked, "what if three people all claimed to have seen an invisible hand?" The economist replied that he would believe in it. The philosopher reminded the economist that the notion of an invisible hand guiding the economic agents in a crowded market was absurd, a ridiculous mythological narrative, yet when repeated by numerous people, it seemed real.

Stage 2.

(Three economists make a Bayesian agent).

The second economist enter a state that has an economy, but in which condition is the economy? what kind and what type of economy is it?
A philosopher of science asked the economist if he would believe in a persons report that Bayesian agents was roaming the market, to which the economist replied no. The philosopher asked what the economist thought if two people reported the same thing, and the economist said he would begin to wonder. The philosopher then asked, "what if three people all claimed to have seen Bayesian agents?" The economist replied that he would believe in it.
The philosopher reminded the economist that the notion of human agents reasoning and acting in accordance to the equations of Reverend Thomas Bayes, in a crowded market with so many inputs and variables was absurd, and especially when considering the evidence published by Daniel Kahneman, yet when repeated by numerous people it seemed real.

Stage 3.

(Three economists make an equilibrium model, third part of a circular tautology).

The third economist enter a state that has an economy, but in which condition is the economy? what kind and what type of economy is it?
A philosopher of science asked the economist if he would believe in a persons report that the market was in a state of equilibrium, to which the economist replied no. The philosopher asked what the economist thought if two people reported the same thing, and the economist said he would begin to wonder. The philosopher then asked, "what if three people all claimed to have seen the market in a state of equilibrium?" The economist replied that he would believe in it.

The philosopher reminded the economist that the notion of an equilibrium is both preposterous and fallacious, a state of equilibrium happens in a chemical laboratory when all the properties and variables are set exact and appropriately in accordance and in balance to each other, but in the real world with real people, the notion of a state of economic equilibrium in a crowded market with so many different inputs, variables, conflicting interests and high level of complexity was absurd, yet when repeated by numerous people it seemed real.

The philosopher of science tried to warn the economists, he tried to warn all three economists one by one, but to no avail. When the economists gathered,  they all told their stories to each other. One economist said: "There were three different happenings to three economists, we have a pattern here". The second economist said: "This faith will be confirmed". The third economist said: "Yes, we then have probable cause for faith. We shall then believeth in the invisible hand. We shall believeth in Bayesian agents. We shall make a synthesis out of this. We shall call it a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium".

All three economists then chanted together: "This faith is now confirmed, amen".

Stage 4.

(The extrinsic teleological ending of this economic narrative and fairytale).

The philosopher of science approached all three economists at the same time and said: "But don't you see that your conclusions are fallacious and preposterous.
A state of equilibrium happens only in a chemical laboratory when the environment are in a specific condition, but in the real world with real people, using equilibrium models when thinking of macro economics is obviously wrong, a serious and erroneous conflation of empirical economy and political economy, and a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium is hardly any better, for it is too useless a task to think in terms of conditions that may happen a long time into the future, if in the future there will not be a struggle of resources or distribution, and only marginal disagreements on political economy. We could call that a macro economic equilibrium perhaps, but this scenario will probably not happen until many generations into the future."
 "And the invisible hand, that's just a metaphor. To assume a conclusion from the basis of a figuratively spoken metaphor, and to claim that it is a serious attempt at social science is a fallacious statement that is inherently in a contradiction with the scientific method."
"There are agents that are living persons who are causing these transactions, and they are not Bayesian. This is a not even a slight attempt at doing social scientific research within the constraints of conventional epistemology and philosophy of science, especially including the scientific method that is in use in the natural sciences". 

The philosopher then asked the economists if they would believe in a persons report that a tiger was roaming the market, to which the economists replied: "Oh no. God forbid that the market would ever enter into a state of disequilibrium!", and, "How can agents act in a Bayesian manner if there is a tiger roaming the same market as the agents! Just imagine the volatility, recessions and slow growth, the invisible hand would disappear, it would be chased away by the tiger...!".
"What a financial tragedy that would be! And the government would have to bail us out". 

The economists then left the town, convinced that the only thing that could disrupt their new economic model was if a tiger roamed the market and caused mayhem.

--- end of story ---.

Copyrighteous: @equalitus.