Economics is a science as good as any other. It's just that a lot of people with a lot of money want it to say something so it does. No science is insulated from its practitioners being bought out and the few with principles being silenced.
I'm missing the context here — could you expand on what's happened to biology?
The worst of these decisions by far was deciding that covid was spread by aerosols and not airborne: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7
This was nothing short of Lysenkoism in the 21st century.
Somehow this doesn't seem to matter though, we still teach the theory.
If we assume the economy is already in perfect equilibrium then raising the minimum wage will cause inflation but the wages will adjust upwards with the same coefficient vs the minimum wage.
Another factor is that if you give money to people who haven't met their basic needs yet is that they will spend their money faster which means it circulates faster which will generate another employment opportunity. This is effectively a scheduling problem akin to starvation in process/thread scheduling in the kernel. If you ignore a specific thread too much then it can block other threads and result in underutilization of resources.
The latter tells you that you shouldn't prioritize the needs of the wealthy so that "wealth trickles down".
As long as you're clear about what tradeoffs you're making, and as a society we still want no employment effect, if it works at $100, what's the problem?
You only have something to discuss if it's clear that unemployment will rise, and even so you need to decide how much is tolerable in exchange for whatever you get out of raising the minimum wage.
If we don't use evidence we choose blindly.
You can run economic experiments. That isn't the problem. The bigger problem is the unstated assumption of a perfectly liquid economy even in the absence of money and the fact that the mathematical models are supposed to drive reality and not the other way around. Homo sapiens is supposed to mimic homo economics.