[berntb]

There are lots of non-experimental subjects at any university -- history, archeology, etc.

The ideologists wanting to demote economics never seem to want to also throw geology out of the university.

(In the future, some gigantic geo engineering might make geology experimental, the same goes for "perfect" computer models of society and economic experiments. Don't hold your breath, unless we argue inside such a model now; wonder what the hypothesis is? :-) )

[marcosdumay]

Eh, sorry, but geology is full of theories that were (and are) later tested, most getting discarded after the testing, and a few holding up and being accepted as true. Just like any science out there.

Do you know of any macroeconomical (because, really, that's all about macro) theory that was discarded since Keynes become mainstream?

[berntb]

The "scientific method" -- which I commented on -- needs to formulate hypotheses, test them and so on. That can't reliably be done in any mostly historical science, by definition.

(And of course you can randomly test some things in historical sciences too. E.g. finding historical trading patterns by looking at materials used for artefacts, diet by looking at enamel of skeletons, etc etc. Other things won't find any possible test solution, ever.)