I already corrected your misreading of what I said about science and experiments. I said "The hard sciences are constrained by their ability to perform experiments. That’s what insulates them from the business pressures to falsify data, to cut corners, or to steer their research to maximize profits with applications. When that firewall is absent, as in the case of recent theoretical physics, the science tends to become a theological cult as Lee Smolin and the others argue."

You listed evolutionary biology, astronomy, geology, ecology, and climate science as sciences that aren't experimental. But biologists certainly conduct experiments, and the others are outgrowths of scientific experiments performed in related sciences. You're treating the sciences as though they were wholly independent.

All sciences are indirectly based on careful observations. That's what grounds their theories in reality. It's much easier to scientifically observe nonliving things than it is to observe life and especially people and society. Partisan disagreements enter into the interpretation of human history. There's plenty of data there too, but economists' grounding in reality is impeded by the political partisanship.

What science requires is dedication to understanding reality, not the evocation of fantasies to distract as propaganda. Neoclassical economists focused on analyzing a perfect kind of capitalism that isn't real. A model that simplifies still has to be grounded in observed regularities. The model's failure to apply has to be the exception, not the rule. Otherwise, the model isn't scientific since it's fiction. When fiction masquerades as nonfiction and even as a scientific theory, you have propaganda.

If the welfare theorems have normative conclusions but no normative assumptions, the inferences instantiate the naturalistic fallacy. Assuming the inferences are valid, the normative assumptions must be hidden, as in unstated and presupposed. That's how propaganda works, with devious uses of rhetoric and insinuation.