As a scientist: WHAT? You're saying that science is useless without experimentalists? (my side) Theorists do a lot of great work and I don't think any experimentalist would say they are useless. Sure, there is the playful banter of who's more important, but when it comes down to it we all know everyone is an important part of the system and that we need both.

Theorists set the groundwork. They come up with a lot of vague notions and then move to work with experimentalists to figure out how they can test these notions. How to "prove" it.

But saying they are "worthless"? That's just hogwash. Even if wrong, they aren't worthless. (Hint: most of the time they are wrong) And yes, economics isn't as rigid as something like physics. But it is pretty complicated stuff and they don't have as much of a history and basic principles. They may not be a hard science (or some might say not even a science), but calling an analysis worthless is just bad. And saying that in "normal science" (it's just science) things need to be testable to be useful is also just wrong. I'd call string theorists mathematicians, but what they do isn't worthless.

If this is really the way people think science is done, we've got a big problem.