I'm not a Cartesian dualist, so that's irrelevant. I'm a property dualist, not a substance one.

You dodged the question, which means you concede that the dilemma has locked you in its vice grip.

If neurologists identified the mind with the brain, and their knowledge of how the brain works were extensive and exact, then indeed subjects would be in danger of being identified as objects, in which case the question of experimenting on humans or of otherwise treating us as things would arise. But neurologists will be the first to tell you that their knowldge of the brain is in its infancy.

If economists believe the same about their understanding of economies, I would be fine with that since that confession would be humbling and in line with the humanistic culture they're supposed to have as scientists. But that confession would eliminate much of the field's prestige.

The comparison with neurology is limited, however, because there's much more urgency in understanding how the brain works, for medical reasons. We have no choice but to trust medical doctors because of the overriding imperative to preserve human life. Yet we can live without the economist's technocracy, especially if economists engage in pseudo-rigorous exercises.