You know someone has no credibility on the matter when they mention homo economicus, as if it was the keystone.
Yeah, as someone who actually has a degree in both computer science and economics, it's really embarrassing to see the level of discourse that pervades threads on economics.
It's like seeing an economics student who's taken half an introductory CS class argue that CS is "a fundamentally broken pseudoscience", because they just found an implementation of an O(log(n)) algorithm that was slower than an implementation of an O(n^2) algorithm.
Your defense in particular sounds a lot like an argument from authority.
You fall in the category of people who think that debate about science should be limited to those who know science theory. The problem I saw in the field is that people talking have to much to loose, hence forbidding a reworking of the fundamental assumption and a trashing of the useless models that we keep producing.
If you want to do real science, go ask the ones who are practicing economics daily about their heuristics. Nightclub owners figured out their economics interest long before two-sided market theory was out there, after all.