I'm sure there are entire studies about why homeopathy works. What's your point? That economists are better liars than homeopaths?

Economics should be viewed like history: as an after-the-fact study, not some form of prediction model. Meaning, not a science, as it is by definition non reproducible (until we invent a time machine). Seen from this angle, I think economics is a quite interesting topic, yes.

But most "economists" from last century just spew things about how capitalism is great, because suggesting otherwise would be a (career) suicide in most of the west during the cold war, and things have been slow to evolve. Also, empirical data is not what defines science. It's only used to support theories. Otherwise, I can tell you that 99% of the people who take homeopathy for their flue are cured within the week. See how useless "empirical" data can be on their own?

Economists who view themselves as anything more than historians are basically gurus pushing whatever ideology is trending. Even the more mathematical aspects of economics rely on vague theoretical models that cannot be used for anything but filling up a thesis. But if one of those models can predict when ww3 starts, when Putin dies, or who will win the next election in my city, then I'll admit, maybe they are good for something.

Makes me wonder who, between you and I, needs to learn more about economics.