Peter Hume, you state the "irrationality of Chris’s intellectual method".

Well, you should stop wasting your time responding to my rubbish. Please, please, please, focus on what you consider is intellectually worth responding to.

Hume:"Of course if there is really no such thing as economic science, then the theory that capital goods, or rain dances, are equally efficacious ways to produce crops, must be on an equal footing. "

I don't think this is anti-rational, they probably are on equal footing. Rain dances were effective enough for many people before irrigation techniques and meteorology. The similarities are in the fact that the economy operates independently of economics (and often vise versa), and that people seem believe in them more when uncertainty is increased.

Bugsy
"I don't think this is anti-rational, they probably are on equal footing. Rain dances were effective enough for many people before irrigation techniques and meteorology. The similarities are in the fact that the economy operates independently of economics (and often vise versa), and that people seem believe in them more when uncertainty is increased."

It sounds anti-rational to me. What is the reason or evidence to think that rain dances are efficacious as a means to their intended aim of promoting crop growth?

Chris
You are only confirming that you don't care whether or not what you say is true.

Why would you want to avoid rational disproofs of your beliefs?