Unlike any art economics can make predictions, and we can test the validity of such predictions. That our models are insufficient right now doesn't mean we should cast the whole discipline into the toilet.
I've always been a bit uneasy about economics because people's behavior depends on their beliefs, and their behavior as economic agents especially depends on their beliefs about the the economic theory that motivated the design of their habitat.
I expect that if a population that grew up in a system designed under assumption X and happened to eat well and always have a roof, then they will behave in a way that confirms theories compatible with X.
On the other hand, if they experienced extreme economic strife under leadership that believes in the validity of X, then--as data points--they're more likely to influence economic theory testing in the opposite way.
How can you know whether your predictions are correct because they're objectively true about human behavior, versus them being correct because your sample set has been influenced by the same economic theory that motivated the prediction in the first place?
Is statistics really so powerful that it can eliminate the circularity from the situation?
Agreed.
> we can test the validity of such predictions.
Nope.
> we should cast the whole discipline into the toilet.
Agreed.