Economists have more in common with priests than scientists.
Economists' objective is to collect observations and use that to build predictive theories. Therefore in intent (and largely in method, depending on the area of economy) they are exactly like scientists. Whether they are successful at it or not is another question.
In practice economists guess a lot, as do priests and research scientists, and many other people. (Clarification: I use here "research scientists" to distinguish them from people who have been trained as scientists but in their day-to-day don't really occupy themselves with questions with unknown answers. Of course, those people don't guess at all. They are usually either teacher/professors or engineers.)
One example is the notion that raising the minimum wage does not cause unemployment - there is a massive amount of pressure put on economists to reach the opposite conclusion because raising it hits profit margins in a big way. Krueger talked about the way economists reacted to his paper - many acted as if they had been betrayed.
Similar stuff happens in physics over pet theories but there is no overarching imperative driven by access to prestigious jobs, money, publications, etc.
Link please?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu_t...
Decades after the findings were published.
I find it hard to conclude this would be the method of a established science.
Not to mention that many of “mainstream” economics is at odds with accounting principles.
> Neoclassical economics still has no plausible answer for the Anything Goes theorem:
What should it be answering? You linked to a theorem, not a question. And even if it were a question that a certain theory doesn't have an answer to, that's perfectly normal. Theories come with their domains of applicability. Go outside that and they "don't have an answer". For a comparison to physics, that would be like saying "centuries after the findings were published, Newton's theory still can't explain the speed of light being the same in every reference frame, I find it hard to conclude this is the method of an established science."
> I find it hard to conclude this would be the method of a established science.
What are you referring to when you say "this"? The thing you linked to is a theorem, not a method.
I think you might be assuming from me knowledge and context that I don't have.
What it says is that economists should include more psychology and less mathematics in their theories.
> What it says is that economists should include more psychology and less mathematics in their theories.
Those are some really groundbreaking ideas, I can't believe no one has thought of that before.
I was a scientist (physicist) until 4 years ago. Which bit exactly do you think I need to learn?