Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing makes me think economics is scientific. But it's taught as if it's a science, handled inside academia as if it's a science, and has more influence on policy than hard science does. If it's not a science, those three facts are rather curious.
You can view economics (the field) as a coordination device. Basically, nobody knows anything[1]. But if everyone were to admit that, there would be no basis on which to conduct policy. → Chaos/arbitrariness/incoherence (over time and sectors) So people make up and promote a narrative (bullshit story) and if enough people believe / are made to believe in it, then you have a basis for relatively stable and coherent po…
In a situation that affects so many people, it may seem unwise to do experiments and try things where we can not say with certainty what effects they might have, though we admit they may be substantial. The ethics are very dim on that front. But the alternative has to be considered. We do not have 'generally accepted treatment' to turn to and rely on. We only have other experiments, albeit while not calling them experiments and not treating them as if their outcomes are in doubt, simply forging ahead with blinders on. I can't imagine an argument that would justify that as more ethical than earnestly doing experiments.