Nothing to do with dualism and everything to do with professional ethics, you say. And freewill's an irrelevant philosophical abstraction because it can't be empirically tested.

So that's rank positivism. Are you supposed to be able to support a concept of ethics using only factual, descriptive language and without lapsing into the fact-value dichotomy that presupposes the dualism in question?

No, this line of yours is just entailed by the economist's physics envy. Everything must be objective in economics to be scientifically respectable, as though there were no relevant difference between subjects and objects. Yet if that were so and positivism were still the least bit respectable, you'd have no sustainable objection to performing horrific experiments on people, because you'd be blind to the difference between people and natural objects.

This is quite the dilemma for you, isn't it? Which way will you go, I wonder. Will you concede there's some such fact-value dichotomy, in which case the economist's intensive use of math seems out of place in social science? Or will you maintain this preposterous positivism, in which case you'll have no good reason to support your objection to Nazi-like experiments on humanity.

I'll get the popcorn while you figure it out.