The &quot;rat is to human&quot; (from a pharmaceutical perspective) as &quot;rational actor is to human&quot; (from an economic perspective) I think is a very fragile analogy. Rats and humans are very similar in their response to pharmaceuticals (and so serve as reasonable first model), but the difference between rational actor and human is so vast (at least in terms of how the real world works) that it calls into question the value of rational actor models for real-world policy.<p>In that case, the &quot;theoretical argument is simply the best argument&quot; is wrong; we should study economic history and human behavior rigorously and let that inform our policy. Theory can serve as a useful model when it is validated by some sort of observation and data -- but even when we cannot perform controlled studies there is not a knock-down argument that &quot;theory&quot; must be our best guess.<p>I agree that a person&#x27;s interpretation of economics is very likely to be influenced by their idea of how the world <i>should</i> work; but this is more a problem of our characteristic lack of critical self-reflection. And of course, we should have cogent arguments for our interpretation of economics, ideally rooted in objective evidence.