I've compared economics unfavourably to physics and to the other hard, natural sciences. You've compared them favourably. Do you see the difference now? Your charge of hypocrisy is feeble sophistry.

The link between smoking nicotine and cancer is biological, not social.

Models in social science have lesser epistemic value because they're not backed up by experiments that control for all the variables. That's why there's a replication crisis in the soft sciences, and it's why we distinguish between the hard and the soft sciences. That's not a matter of debate. It's a fact.

So is economics a hard/natural or a soft/social science, according to you? If it's the latter, how does economics differ methodologically from, say, physics, according to you?