Thanks for this. I have been busy with work and not on Nostr much for a few days, but a few thoughts I'd be interested in learning more on.

Is economics a science? Philosophers of science have struggled for some time to define what science is. One idea put forth to separate science from pseudo science is that a science must be falsifiable. That is there must be a way in which it can be tested and shown to be false by empirical evidence and reason. When I read your first paragraph on Keynsianism failing occasionally it made me think of this. One of the ways I struggle with socialists and free market folks a lot is when their is an example of their system of choice failing they simply say, "The implementation was wrong". In some ways I sympathize, but on the other hand, it seems a way to dismiss evidence that does not support our preferred system. From where I sit now this critique could be applied to any economic system, but maybe you can correct me.

I have been wondering if Austrian vs. Keynsian split is essentially an epistemological split similar to the rationalist vs. empiricist split in philosophy. The Austrian's argue from 'first principles' similar to the 'a priori' of the rationalists and Keynsians argue from sense and experience similar to the empiricists. Is this a sensible way of framing the differences?

Thank you for your post and insights.