[nanis]

> To be clear: you think economics is _not actually empirical_

That is a misrepresentation of what I said.

To be clear, I think what I said:

>>A large part of economics is not empirical at all

E.g., as an example, Kahneman's Nobel is solely a product of taking an axiomatic theory and designing experiments where regular people who are actually not being paid according to their performance are gently prodded into violating the axioms in weird settings. It is attractive to people who want to claim that clearly the plebes cannot be allowed to choose for themselves as they are not "rational".

The only meaning of "rational" in Economics is that individuals choose the best alternative according to their preferences among a constrained set of alternatives. Here an "alternative" or "bundle" is a point in the entire commodity space.

The only test of this is consistency with GARP: A choice is not rational if a feasible and more preferred alternative exists.