My philosophy isn't authoritarian at all. I wrote a long series against conservative authoritarianism, and my views are based on an existential appreciation of everyone's creative potential. So that charge of yours comes across as bizarre and irrelevant, from my perspective.
I ignore your ad hominem attacks because they bore me, knowing as I do that they're distractions and that they betray the weakness of your case. You're obssessive and hyperdefensive on this issue, which makes me embarrased to press the matter much further, for fear that you'd collapse. I search your comments for substantive arguments.
Anecdotes and micro-examples won't stand up to the kinds of generalizations I'm making because those generalizations aren't meant to be absolute. It's not like I'm saying all swans are white, so you have only to show me a single black swan to refute everything I'm saying.
I understand that economics has become more pluralistic in recent decades, and I thank you for pressing that point in our earlier exchange. I addressed that development in an earlier article (link below), so I didn't ignore it. That's why I concluded this time that some parts of economics may be more scientific than others. Behavioural economics is more scientific than the neoclassical, aprioristic, arguably propagandistic, and acutely mathematical kind. So your counterexamples are consistent with my conclusion. As I explained to you earlier, you jumped the gun and seem to have missed that my take in this article isn't so one-sided.
What I'm saying isn't that economics isn't at all scientific. I'm saying that economists explicitly or effectively exaggerate their field's scientific merits.
