We've been through that before. We agree there's a problem with teaching economics, especially at the undergraduate level, although I may take a dimmer view even of that limited problem. But we disagree on how much economics itself is tainted by these dogmas. You have an insider's knowledge that I lack, but you also have more of an ax to grind (because I'm an outsider).

Even if economics has become more pluralistic in its modelling, that's not necessarily a step in the right direction since it means that economists can explain all possible data by picking the right model in an ad hoc fashion. That makes the field more theological than scientific. What economists need is consensus based on knowledge of cold, hard facts plus a unifying humanistic perspective.

Even my recent article on the scientific status of economics concedes that some economists are likely more scientific than others. But my conclusion is that economics isn't as scientific as economists are likely to contend. Economists are wont to exaggerate the objectivity and rigourousness of their work. That doesn't mean there's no objectivity or rigour there at all.