This is complete nonsense, economics is by far the strongest social science field in terms of empirical methodology. Pretty much all the modern causal inference methods were developed in econometrics. Try taking a look at the big econ journals (like Journal of Political Economy, American Economic Review, or Journal of Finance) and I assure you you won't find anything resembling arbitrary "opinions".

Economics may be the most elaborate in manipulating mediocre data to support a hypothesis, but it is important to remember how incredibly easy it is to be wrong or mislead others when using data and complex statistical methods.

There is a simple method to disprove your wild claims that comes from system theory.

Regardless of the field, be it economics, cookery or mechanical engineering, you can ask a pool of experts:

- How can I solve problem X? What will happen if I do nothing?

- How confident are you that the solution will be effective or the prediction will be accurate?

The problem X is the input and then you compare predictions and real outputs.

There is abundant literature on the effectiveness of economical models and the ability to make prediction and the outcomes are clear:

- Economists systematically overestimate their ability to make predictions

- There is not even a single economical theory. Economists have different schools of thought that are incompatible with each other (!)

There are countless examples of economists failing to predict the future or having wildly different opinions.

Right, can science accurately model the 3 body problem? Or turbulent flows in fluids?

I guess science is a failure then, better give it up.

You are making a strawman.

Ask meteorologists about their models and they will honestly tell you the limitations of such models and the success rate at predicting the weather. They have little incentive to lie.

It will be difficult to find meteorologists with clear "anti snow" or "pro rain" biases.

Same goes for getting a blood check: they are not 100% reliable, yet it's difficult to find a lab with an ideological bias skewing the results.

Then, ask economists and you'll quickly find out that their predictions and advice on economic policies aligns with the school of though they belong to.

Politicians routinely ask for advice from this or that economist depending on what they want to hear.

Politicians commonly ask advice from this or that scientist depending on what they want to hear rather than looking for peer reviewed models. I would say that's a problem of a different nature.

Nice example.

Economics almost by definition can not make good predictions wanted by the public, because as soon you figure out precise model “a” of the economy, the economy takes the model “a” into account and mutates to model “b”.

> There is not even a single economical theory

This applies to all social science.

> There are countless examples of economists failing to predict the future or having wildly different opinions.

This applies to all social science.

That's a sweeping generalization, but ignoring that and assuming it's true: so what?

Your argument on sociology hinges on that not being true.

Some would beg to differ https://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2021/04/06/econometrics-a-cr...