[negligible91]

(Bumping up this thread because my question is a follow-up to Dr. Herbener’s response)

Although Dr. Gordon explains the axiom as a common sense claim that we know from experience, would he still say that economics starts off with reflective facts rather than observable ones like the natural sciences (here I am alluding to what you say in lecture 1) because we only bring meaning to action (action is purposeful; it applies a means to a given end, it is motivated by that end, etc.) by reflecting on it? I recently read Plato’s The Republic and I am reminded of a passage where Socrates in the dialogue explains that there is a difference between the seen and the understood. So in other words, we can see and observe action all around us, but because our reflection gives it meaning, the fact that human beings act would be considered a reflective one, not an observable one. Am I right in thinking this way about economics?