I agree with the general argument. I think (some) philosophy is an immature science, or predecessor to a science, and some is in reference to how to do things better, therefore subject to less stringent, but not fundamentally different, standards than science—political philosophy, say (assuming, counterfactually, political thinking were remotely rational). And of course a lot of philosophy is just nonsense—probably most of it. But economics can hardly be called a science. If anything, the “field” has experienced retrograde evolution since it stopped being part of philosophy.
I agree with the general argument. I think (some) philosophy is an immature science, or predecessor to a science, and some is in reference to how to do things better, therefore subject to less stringent, but not fundamentally different, standards than science—political philosophy, say (assuming, counterfactually, political thinking were remotely rational). And of course a lot of philosophy is just nonsense—probably most of it. But economics can hardly be called a science. If anything, the “field” has experienced retrograde evolution since it stopped being part of philosophy.