This is known for 2300+ years ― except among economists: “Research is in fact a continuous discussion of the consistency of theories: formal consistency insofar as the discussion relates to the logical cohesion of what is asserted in joint theories; material consistency insofar as the agreement of observations with theories is concerned.” (Klant)
Jason Smith quotes Noah Smith: “One thing I still notice about macro, including the papers Reis cites, is the continued proliferation of models. Almost every macro paper has a theory section. Because it takes more than one empirical paper to properly test a theory, this means that theories are being created in macro at a far greater rate than they can be tested.” And then he comments: “This is fascinating, as it’s completely unheard of in physics.”
In his full-blown naivité, Jason Smith has not realized that economics is what Feynman called a cargo cult science. As Hands remarked: “… suppose they [the economists] did reject all theories that were empirically falsified … Nothing would be left standing; there would be no economics.”
Economists need no testing at all because the outcome is ALREADY KNOWN: it is either refutation or inconclusiveness. The reason is simple, ALL macro models are axiomatically false.
Because of this, Jason Smith’s proposal ― more testing ― is in the given context entirely beside the point. When the theory/model is known to be axiomatically false testing does NOT help, only the replacement of false axioms by true axioms helps.
Obviously, the physicist and hobby economist Jason Smith has never heard that progress in physics has always come from Paradigm Shifts, e.g. from geocentrism to heliocentrism. In Keynes' words: “Something similar is required to-day in economics.”
Related 'If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics' and 'From the pluralism of false models to the true economic theory' and 'The IS-LM macro imbeciles' and 'IS-LM ― a crash course for EconoPhysicists' and 'What is REALLY wrong with macro' and 'From false micro to true macro: the new economic paradigm' and 'How economists missed out on the essential relationship of economics'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Employment/Phillips Curve and cross-references Profit/Distribution.
You simply do not get the interdependence of economic law and history straight. As Keynes used to say: “a little clear thinking or more lucidity can solve almost any problem” see The Synthesis of Economic Law, Evolution, and History.
What you believe is irrelevant. Science is about knowledge, and when you know nothing you are out. It is as simple as that. And if economists as a collective know nothing they are out, too. And the first thing they have to do is to abolish the so-called Nobel which is explicitly titled “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.#1 Science is well-defined as material and formal consistency, so there is NO room for belief, opinion, storytelling, and another wish-wash.
Bring scientific knowledge to the table#2 or hit the road.
#1 The real problem with the economics Nobel and Heterodoxy’s scientific self-burial and How to get rid of the silly Queen and Failed critique of failed economics
#2 Here is the macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand, Wikimedia AXEC64.
The most noise in economics comes from economists because they are too stupid to put 2 and 2 together.#1 The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the pivotal economic concept profit wrong. Economics is a failed science and economists are incompetent scientists.
#1 Review of the economics troops
Bring yourself methodologically up to speed and replace Wikipedia’s outdated definition of Law with the more general notion of Invariance.#1 There is NO causality in E=mc2 but it is a Law.#2
#1 The Law of Economists’ Increasing Stupidity
#2 This is the causality-free First Economic Law, Wikimedia AXEC06.
When you have no scientific knowledge you have NOTHING whatsoever to contribute to economic policy: “If economics cannot aspire to any substantive knowledge of economic relationships, it cannot speak with authority about questions of economic policy.” (Blaug)
So, take the remote control, sit down on the couch and watch sitcoms. This is the best every economist can do for the survival and welfare of humanity.
Related ‘Economic policy advice has never had sound scientific foundations’ and ‘How economists shoot themselves non-stop in the methodological foot’
Immediately following True macrofoundations: the reset of economics.