You make a good argument, and I can agree with all that.
I’ve been thinking about this, and while I don’t deny the observation you’re making here, I’m not entirely sure how fair it is to judge the discipline itself for the foibles of some fraction of its practitioners. (Even if this is an overwhelmingly large fraction.)
What causes the disagreements in economics – and creates the disputes between “conservative” and “liberal” econ – is the relative proximity to politics.
Physics would have the same problems if there were political forces at play.
That might sound like a hypothetical, but it’s historically demonstrated. There were factions within Soviet physics that were literally treating quantum theory and relativity as “idealist” lies based on false Western conceptions that didn’t fit with proper Marxist theory. Lysenko had crushed his ideological enemies in biology, and there was a scheduled conference in physics that would have pressed the ideological attack if it had not been cancelled by Stalin at the last minute, in fear that charlatan physicists might delay development of the Bomb. David Holloway’s article “How the Bomb Saved Soviet Physics” relates the story.
We’re already seeing political dogma start to infest medical research and parts of biology. There are datasets being cordoned off from researchers right now if they are suspected of wrongthink.
The political brain will sacrifice literally every fact we’ve ever discovered about this world if it will serve some higher religious “truth”.
In our current political climate, physics will remain insulated from the kind of bullshit that tarnishes other fields whose conclusions have direct political implications. But that’s just the result of our current system. Physics is far enough from politics for us that it’s harder for charlatans to take control. But harder is not impossible.
I would agree that the social sciences (not excluding economics) do not possess the same kind of buffer that physics has.
Their direct proximity to political belief makes them continually susceptible to quackery, even at the “highest” levels. Who does the peer reviewing? Other members of the tribe, same as any other discipline. Unfortunately this can lead to a kind of circle-jerk where an influential group of insiders dominate a literature to ill effect for extended periods of time. This does happen. Can’t deny it.
I’m not interested in whether the field qualifies for some feel-good, positive-connotation label.
But I will say that there has remained, through it all, genuine room for dispute and disagreement. The political controversy has not stifled all dissent. This space of disagreement is perhaps not as large as I would like to have for my own minority opinions, but it does exist. And because of that space for dispute, because of that open area where “conservative” and “liberal” advocates can both find places to work to push their ideas, there remains still to this day a place within the field where good economics can also sometimes find a home. Not as often as I’d like. But this happens, too.
If there were actually some grand consensus, a blessed uniformity of opinion within such a politically fraught field like economics, it would not be the result of clear vision and universal agreement. Such a thing would only happen if one faction gained a permanent position of power, and purged all dissidents.
The controversy and lack of consensus is a sign of health in the field. It means the bad guys haven’t won.
It also means you shouldn’t trust any macroeconomist you ever come across. (Except me, natch.) The average person shouldn’t trust the macroeconomists that are on the opposite side of the political aisle, and they really shouldn’t trust the ones who appear to be “on their side”. (Although out of political convenience, they always always will.)
It’s a conundrum.
I’m working on it. I have a few wild-ass projects I’m pursuing. Most likely come to nothing… but you never know.
The fundamental law that is often overlooked is “that people are not rational beings”, which is not often taken into economic models.