I don't think the poster was saying any of this. They were simply stating that the post was informational and that they weren't offering any commentary on the situation, just giving facts.

I mean, sure a physicist can be wrong, but if they are giving facts as are currently accepted by the community or even as they know them, it isn't an emotional statement of whether they agree. It is just that: Facts as we know them, to the best of our ability and not giving the commentary with it.

He said "laws of physics" not "physicists." You're deliberately misreading his point, which undermines whatever point you're trying to make.

Laws of physics are discovered by human experiment.

Economics are defined by humans.

They’re taught to each other by humans.

It’s all wrapped in how we treat each other at scale.

Separating the two is impossible except as a semantics game.

They're separable by experimental verification. The laws of physics are multiple orders of magnitude more accurate than the laws of economics, and the physicists are certain that at least one of their models is wrong.

Try getting an admission like that out of an economist!

As economists we are certain all of our models are wrong! But some can be useful in a constrained environment to answer specific questions, so thats why we have so damn many of them!