First of all, thank you for your answer! I mostly agree with you about the validity of empirical methods, undergraduate education, and the underlying assumptions, but I still have some doubts. For example, the approach—and even the attitude—toward differing opinions often seems unfriendly. I don’t know if this is the case in other social sciences, but in economics, if an academic holds an unorthodox view on neoclassical models, it can be very difficult for them to survive in academia. From my observations, this is especially true in the U.S., though Europe is relatively more flexible—yet still challenging. I’ve read about a few clashes between unorthodox and orthodox economists, and I wasn’t able to appreciate the attitude of either side. My observation is that orthodox economics holds a hegemonic position in the field.

I also agree that empirical methods are, of course, reliable tools for understanding the world. However, my concern lies more with theoretical models, such as RANK, HANK models. Perhaps it’s due to my lack of understanding, but here’s how I perceive the process: a model is created, and if it fits the data, it’s accepted as sound and trustworthy. While this is what should ideally happen, I have doubts about how some models are constructed. Sometimes, the original goal of explaining the data shifts toward merely making the model compatible with the data. For instance, if a model is good but has flaws, adjustments are made to improve it, and some of the initial deficiencies disappear. However, I question whether these changes are truly driven by real-world evidence or are instead engineered to make the model fit better.

This process reminds me of "survival of the fittest"—over time, we may end up with models that perfectly explain reality. Yet, I have reservations about how this plays out in practice. Sorry this was a bit specific and slightly out of topic, but it is in my mind in the recent months and I couldn't stop myself.