"This thread of mine might be of interest, especially the first, second, and fifth post." - I. Ryan
When we encounter that much justification for something which is relatively simple in my field and hobbies, we call it wanking. Arguing over definitions is suitable for a PHI class, not that it isn’t necessary or instructive at times, but it also wastes time when a simple issue is being addressed. If theories about economics are untestable and not subject to falsification, what the hell is their point? Science without testing, without repicability, without falsification, is not science plain and simple. It’s more than acceptable to acknowledge limits on the ability to carry out controlled experiments because of the nature of the subject, what can be known and controlled. Even assuming an extreme materialist/reductionist view of the world where free choice doesn’t exist, the variables of cause and effect are simply beyond our knowledge to have access to and to adequately model in order to make meaningful predictions much like the weather. And Austrians would be better served positioning their objection to empiricism in those terms because any other approach merely sounds like a cop out and a convenient way to escape accountability to reality with your theories. If the theory offers no explanatory or predictive benefit, it’s just so much wind baggery. It’s akin to the Global Warming crowd’s approach, who seem to stick to their precious theory even though it’s either framed in ways which render it unfalsifiable and/or ‘predicts’ and forms to all historical events in a post hoc manner.