This question of the status of scientific knowledge is a red herring. You’re talking about the extent to which sciences approximate absolute, perfect knowledge. That’s irrelevant because I’m talking about the extent to which economics is comparable to the other sciences. Regardless of the merits or flaws of physics, biology, and cosmology, I can ask for the economic equivalent of the dominant theoretical framework in those other sciences. And that’s just what I’ve done. What’s the equivalent in economics of Darwinism in biology, of relativity and the standard model of particles in physics, or of the big bang theory in cosmology?

I know that the consensus in those other fields may prove ultimately to be mistaken, and that there’s debate about the details and plenty of rival models that may establish new paradigms. But that’s irrelevant to the question at issue because economics had better be at least as scientific as the other sciences—and not just in terms of methods but cognitive victories. Scientists make progress in their understanding so that their knowledge accumulates. Darwinism, the big bang theory and so on are what scientists have to show for their labours. Their theories are still tentative and possibly they’ll be superseded, but they’re the best of what’s currently available.

What, then, do economists have to show for their labours? What have they learned about how economies operate? What do they agree on such that we can speak of the current economic paradigm? It’s so telling that you’re still dodging this question, by throwing up quibbles and red herrings.