I don’t care about something that was said because it was said.
Basically, I just defined a priorism as it is defined. It doesn’t exclude anything. Another way to put it is “not empiricism”.
I have no idea what you are talking about, so I guess that I responded to you out of context.
So nevermind.
Having said that, I don’t think there is anything wrong with empiricism per se.
If you reject a priorism, aren’t you rejecting it a priori?
Yes.
I know what I’m going to be for halloween!
I’m afraid you don’t!
Neoclassical, are you enrolled in a degree right now?
yessir, I’ve already graduated. I plan to apply to law school later this year, though. Law and Economics FTW.