No, I'm afraid I'm not going to supply a dissertation for you on the nature of science. I have other things I'd rather be writing. And I'm just assuming that that basic knowledge is held in common. You disagree with my assessment, so the disagreement will have to stand.

Your references to Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo are irrelevant since they were operating when the nature of modern science was only just being established. The one who most solidified the nature of scientific methods was Isaac Newton, who came after them. Those earlier modern cosmologists were in the process of establishing a paradigm for astronomy. They were overcoming the theological dogmas of astrology, and rediscovering the naturalistic discipline of science (the one that the ancient Greeks pioneered).

There's no such excuse now in the twenty-first century. We know what science is. So is economics comparable to a working science or to a proto-science, like early-modern cosmology?