Thus, economists who argue as if their work were scientific in the rigorous sense naturally end up in tedious debates based on incommensurable ontologies, exactly what the natural sciences (through great effort) have managed to avoid.

In contrast, those economists who recognize that they can provide a rational and empirically-based disciplinary perspective on important events — not 'objective science', but, like history or sociology, a set of plausible and coherent explanations — can and should continue commenting on public policy related to their discipline. And, like all other contributions to political debate that rest on thoughtful, empirical, but epistemologically contingent assumptions, their contributions must be weighed in light of their assumptions and other understandings, aka 'ideology', and in light of their potential consequences in our current predicament.

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.”

You are totally wrong on this issue. While most of the mainstream economists are idiots who failed to understand the implications of the actions that were being taken by central banks and governments, economists from the Austrian School got it right yet again and predicted what had to happen. These economists do not get much attention because they do not advocate central planning and meddling in the economy. As such, they do not get funded by governments or special interests looking for handouts so few people get to hear what they have to say.

The real problem here is the political bias for “do something” advice.