On the one hand, you say "contemporary" economics differs from the economics of the 1950s-1970s. On the other, you say neoclassical economics is still dominant. That's contradictory.

If choice framing is consistent with rational choice theory, then that theory, too, is likely vacuous and unfalsifiable. Tell me what is inconsistent with the rational choice theory that economists use. What would count as irrational behaviour that would make nonsense of the invisible hand argument for the advantage of capitalism?

It seems the economic actor would have to be behaving in a chaotic manner, with no consistent pattern in his apparent preferences, and thus with no discernable hierarchy of desires. One minute he works to earn money to care for himself, the next he gives away all his possessions and moves to a cave in India. Then he starts a company before burning down all his assets. If that's how people behaved, would that falsify the economist's rational choice theory?

I don't think it would because we could always posit unconscious or implicit motives to make sense of behaviour that appears chaotic. We're good at detecting patterns, including patterns that aren't really there such as pictures in clouds or on toast. If so-called rationality is just about possible patterns in choices, that "model" or "theory" isn't scientific. To make it scientific, the economist will have to posit more specific kinds of patterns, such as logical or egoistic ones. Hence the equivocation I spoke of in my articles.