Yeah, those standard predictions that come true could be based on little more than commonsense. You don't need to be a scientist to make some predictions that reliably come true.

Of course, scientists can have political disagreements. But science itself needs a method to bypass them, to let the facts speak for themselves. The question is whether economics has such a method.

You're assuming, for example, that Keynesians and Neoclassicals differ only on a narrow, technical issue of auxillary assumptions. I contend that that's false. To be sure, that might be the sole stated, official difference, but that doesn't mean there are no underlying differences that hold sway in the field. You're speaking here as if Freud hadn't made the unconscious mind a thing.

As I said, Keynesians may be socialist in the sense that they're opposed to libertarianism, whereas Neoclassicals may have the opposite viewpoint. And that underying, emotional, normative difference may bias these economists in lots of ways even as they carry out their professional work. That's fine since even real scientists are biased. What economists need, though, is a way of getting around those understandable political or personal disagreements, so that they end up with objective knowledge of how economies work.