I think you pretty much nailed it in your final paragraph. I am an undergraduate philosophy major with economics minor. As far as I can tell, the data support Keynesian models, whereas Austrian/Chicago/Supply-side models haven't panned out in practice. I believe that Keynesian economics is a science and Supply-side is a cult. We shouldn't blame economic theories when politicians make mincemeat out of them.

This post has great promise for lively exchange. Asking whether economics is cult or science is akin to asking the same question about politics. If we further consider the influence that politics and economics exert upon each other, we might come to wonder how it is that the stock market functions at all. Both disciplines covet the science title; yet both are subject to fluctuations and quirks of human emotions. The current state of post-election disarray is instructive. So, haul out your Ouija board, sip some tea and have a little seance. It may not relieve your anxieties but could confer a moment's distraction.
Culturally,
The Doctor.

In France, economics (and accounting, too) belong to 'la science' by definition; in Germany, 'die Wissenschaft' is broad enough to include any body of organized knowledge, including economics, accounting, even metaphysics. On the other hand, in the English-speaking world (so far as I'm aware) economics is not a science, strictly speaking.
A strong case can be made for calling economics a cult; but, an even stronger case can be made for calling it sorcery, If so, it is powerful magic. Bertrand Russell began as a student of economics but abandoned it, declaring anyone could turn a parrot into an economist by teaching it to say, "Supply and demand." Adolf Hitler was attracted to National Socialism by the simplicity of its economic theory, particularly its distinction between 'productive capital' and 'parasitic capital,' and its proposal to confiscate the latter. (Productive capital is involved in the production of goods and services; parasitic capital is self-replicating, making money from money. The classic example of the latter is the coup by investor, George Soros, who made $1-billion in a single day speculating on devaluation of the British pound, producing nothing but a transfer of the said sum from the British Treasury to his account.) It must be admitted that before he descended into monsterhood, Hitler did gain considerable political credibility by ending German hyper-inflation.
But, if economics is so logical, why do so many people buy into economic sorcery? The answer is put nicely by professor Stanislav Andreski in his book, Social Sciences as Sorcery: "Even a most cursory survey of human beliefs reveals that man has no innate inclination to seek the truth; and that absurdity and obscurity, far from repelling, have for most people an irresistible attraction....there are several reasons for this proclivity, but the most general of them is that clarity and logic impose upon our thinking severe constraints which prevent it from wholeheartedly ministering to our desires, hates and whims."
混乱和晦涩对政府尤其有利:“只要权威能激发敬畏，混乱和荒诞就会增强社会的保守倾向。”首先，清晰而有逻辑的思维可以积累知识……而知识的进步迟早会破坏传统秩序。另一方面，混乱的思考，没有任何特别的地方，可以无限放纵，而不会对世界产生任何影响。换句话说，它本质上是静态的;这一特征与它作为社会群体粘合剂的能力有关。"

Economics is a belief system using numbers.
经济、宗教和治理是三种信仰体系，我们可以通过它们来衡量任何文化的非理性容忍范围。

It's worth considering Geert Hofstede's observations about cultural differences in financial theories. Here's a comment on the related field of accounting:
“人们可能认为，金融领域的文化影响相当有限，事实上，权力距离在这方面的研究还没有深入。在其他方面，不确定性规避与更大程度上依赖银行融资有关。59
... ?In large power distance countries, the accounting system will be used more frequently to justify the decisions of the top power holder(s); in fact it usually is their tool to present the desired image, and figures will be twisted to this end.? 60
... high levels of uncertainty avoidance do fit with disclosure and conservatism in accounting. 61
source:http://www.aacsb.edu/resources/globalization/globecourse/contents/readin...

经济学是一门科学——顺便说一下，作为基础科学的哲学也是一门科学。科学就是系统的研究。This enterprise results in understanding by means of observation based reasoning.
What is there to observe? All kinds of things, along with their actions, attributes and relations.
What does a reasoning man make of observations? He methodically makes ideas--which are then systematically connected to achieve ever greater understanding. Ideas enable understanding which involves identification and explanation. Understanding enables successful goal-directed action by man.
需要解释什么才能让经济学产生解释?财富及其增长的过程。
Why is there so much disagreement in this science or that one? Well ideas are not automatically consistent with the facts nor are they always derived according to the proper method. Philosophy defines and should exemplify the proper method of deriving ideas from reality and validating ideas, checking to ensure that they are consistent with reality. The squabbles in economics reflects the unresolved disputes in philosophy.
In time disagreements will get settled one way or another, if we all don't run out of time.

"...if we all don't run out of time."---As Ken Wilber has said: "And just so." And, as I have said and read: we shall see. The more I read from the natural historians and evolutionary biologists, the less confident I am that we shall survive our own "vain imaginings." Neither economics, philosophy, nor science can overcome intractable ignorance. Sure. Disagreements will get settled---until the next time---until we run out of that.
The Doctor.

经济学:我买任何东西都付现金，如果我没有，我就不买。
它对我有效，为什么城市，州，政府不行，为什么不是每个人?
As for investing in others businesses, I wouldn't invest in my own.
Banks: I think it was Ford who said: don't ever trust them with your money.
Money: Rather than MJA on my dollars it says The United States of America.
Economy is like truth, simple is the Way.
=

"The squabbles in economics reflects (sic) the unresolved disputes in philosophy." We might also say the squabbles in religion reflect the unresolved disputes in science. But, each is an entity within itself. As Gould stated, they are NOMA (see: Stephen Jay Gould's works, or Google Gould, NOMA; etc.) But, we were discussing economics, yes? Naturally, those who are intimately and professionally vested in economics, tend to think of it as science. No one who has invested blood,sweat, tears and dollars in anything wants to see it as less than advertised. That is a real dilemma of modern living.
I'll end in this way: economics must be one part tradition; one part speculation; and one part dumb luck. I see nothing scientific about it, otherwise we would have beaten inflation---and wars? they would have been obsolete decades ago. So,---maybe, it IS a cult after all? No,---no,-something else. But---what, exactly???? Come on, you must have gotten it by now. I have given you all the clues.
I recently had an idea for a tee-shirt logo: SAVE THE DINOSAURS. They are all extinct? Are you sure?
如果你看到有人穿那件衬衫，可能是我。反思。

A couple of economists are walking down the street when one of them sees a $100 bill lying in the gutter. "That looks like a $100 bill," he points out.
"No, it's not," replies his friend. "If it were a $100 bill, someone would have picked it up by now."
So, they walk by.
建筑师、工程师和经济学家正在游艇上航行，他们的游艇撞上礁石沉没了。幸运的是，事故发生在一个荒岛附近，但他们的游艇沉得很快，他们所能救的只有他们自己、一箱豆子、一把小铅笔刀和一个打火机。他们往不同的方向走，看看在岛上能找到什么其他的资源。几个小时后，建筑师和工程师回来报告说，岛上到处都是沙和草。现在他们意识到他们饿了，但也意识到他们没有开罐器。
"Well," says the engineer, "let's collect some of the dried grass, build a fire, then throw the cans of beans into the fire. The pressure inside the cans will cause them to burst; then we'll get at the beans."
"No," replies the architect. "The cans will explode, the beans will be all over the island, and we'll barely get any. We must build an enclosure to capture them."
But, there seems to be no way to build an enclosure. So they go in search of the economist and find him sitting in deep thought by the water.
"So, what have you been up to?" they ask him. "Oh, I've just been here thinking about my girlfriend, what a wonderful time we had before I left, and how upset she will be when she finds out that I'm missing."
They explain their problem with the beans. "That's no problem," replies the economist. "I figured that one out hours ago."
“太好了。”工程师和建筑师异口同声地回答。
"Yes, says the economist. "Just assume a can opener."

I'm late to the game but hopefully, people will still read.
I'll preface this with my background and research: I am an economist (professor) who specializes in the the economics of information and contracts. Philosophy, and its integration with economics, is a secondary interest of mine.
我会尽量简短，但我想涵盖更多的领域。
(i) economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources among competing uses -- it is much more than about the macro economy, which has received much of the discussion.
* economists came up with the idea of a market in tradeable pollution rights (or permits), which succeeded wonderfully in nearly eliminating acid rain from the northeast US/southeast Canada
* economic principles, despite the Global Financial Crisis and subsequent Great Recession, have raised standards of living in the developed and especially developing world -- hundreds of millions of people in China, India, and elsewhere have been pulled out of the cycle of poverty and infant mortality
* economic principles can explain the rise of social networking and why there will be very few networks, and the implications for governments that want to control information
* economists use results from economic studies to help policy-makers and businesses design systems for distributing water, determining some "optimal" number of hospital beds to have, designing the health care systems and their relative merits and demerits
(ii) economists have almost always assumed that all economic agents -- firms, consumers, workers, governments, politicians, executives, ... -- behave rationally. What does it mean to behave rationally? It means for the agent to maximize some objective, such as profit or utility, subject to whatever constraints the agent has, be it time, money, legal, technology, ...
Individuals have preferences.
Now, the problem, or rather, conundrum. If an economist assumes that any choice is rational because that maximizes that agent's objective, then we lose all predictive power. Two individuals who are observationally equivalent could still make different decisions, and so we say they are both rational so it must be that they have different (unobservable) preferences. That may be well and good if all we want to do is to explain -- i.e., to predict the past.
但是由于我们想要预测未来——预测这些代理将如何在一个或另一个系统/框架中行动——我们需要对代理的偏好设置限制。一种对主体偏好施加较少结构影响的经济分析比另一种施加更多结构影响的经济分析更受欢迎——这恰恰是因为前者的结果更合理地外推到更广泛的经济体集合。
因此，我们希望偏好具有普遍性——面对风险情况的代理人只是风险厌恶，或风险中性(或风险爱好)。有时，我们会问，如果一个代理人比另一个代理人更厌恶风险，会发生什么。但这个效用的概念是序数的，而不是基数的。
Now, assuming these preferences, we then assume that the agent is rational. Why?
* for one, it has yielded remarkably accurate predictions
* moreover, suppose we drop the assumption of rationality? I know that an individual who is rational and indifferent between a hot dog and a hamburger will purchase whichever has a lower price (including his time cost of traveling/waiting). But what would an irrational individual do? An irrational individual might purchase the food that has the higher price, but he might not.
这就是实验经济学和行为经济学的切入点。博弈论是经济学(和政治学)的一个重要分支——博弈论研究的是个体“参与者”在战略情境中的行为——战略情境是指一个参与者的行动影响另一个参与者的福利，而另一个参与者的选择也会影响第一个参与者的福利。然而，在许多博弈论中，尤其是那些有趣且困难的游戏中，一方或双方玩家都拥有或获取私人信息。好吧，如果参与游戏的玩家不可能知道他的对手所知道的一切，那么一个旁观者如何在回顾结果时推断出私人信息是什么呢?
And so, some economists run experiments -- humans, usually college students, participate in computerized laboratory games; the experimental economists then try to determine how well economic theory of what equilibrium exists, does actually play out. Hopefully, these experiments closely mimic the economies of actual interest, and the college students are sufficiently sophisticated and motivated to emulate the preferences of the players in those situations.
We know that when an industry has few firms (an oligopoly), coordination by those firms in production or pricing or product development decisions is detrimental to society. So, we call it "collusion" and have advised politicians to enact laws against that behavior. Moreover, recent legislation that allows a colluding firm to confess and pay a smaller penalty than it would if it were discovered, has significantly reduced the number of collusive agreements and how long they last. Not only do existing collusive agreements break down, but fewer are entered into precisely because each firm knows that the other may confess, leaving it with huge penalties.
行为经济学更进了一步:它认为个人确实具有“有限”理性。与其宣称个人总是理性的，或说任何事物都是理性的，只是个人的偏好，或举手说没有什么是可预测的，因为所有的个人行为都是非理性的，行为经济学家试图发现脱离理性的模式。
(iii) all of this leads to what makes economics such a difficult predictive study. At the macro level, the economy is a dynamic, chaotic system subjected to external shocks -- wars, climatic events, political outcomes, epidemics, famines, ... In this sense, it is much like trying to predict the climate. But more complicated/fraught with difficulty:
* much of the data that economists use is not actual data of what occurred, but either data of what occurred after it has been tampered with by an active human, or is a survey of humans, who either may misunderstand the question, may have forgotten their actual decision, may decline to respond, or may want to muck things up. Somehow, I doubt that inanimate machines that can be calibrated before and after measurements have been taken are actually subject to the same data problems and
* what I'll call a huge "Heisinberg effect" -- when a climate scientist proclaims that the next decade will have 20% more category 5 hurricanes in the North Atlantic than the previous decade had, the climate does not react to that statement. When a politician or renowned economist (POTUS or Fed Chairman Bernanke) makes a similar proclamation about the future of the economy, it affects expectations of the individuals in that economy and thereby can, and does, affect what actually does transpire.
And so it is that my greatest wish for economics in the news is to abandon point estimates and instead use confidence intervals. We are 95% confident that in the next quarter, the GDP will grow at an annual rate between 1.7 and 1.8%, for example.
(iv) In part, this is in response to Dave the Carpenter, who wrote that economics is not a science. A science is a systematic study of phenomena whereby a theory is formulated that yields testable hypotheses and then data are acquired in order to determine the accuracy of those predictions. If the predictions are affirmed, then evidence to support the theory is stronger, but if the predictions are not affirmed, then the econometricians (those who use the data) examine the veracity of the data, the mathematical properties of the statistical methods they employed and, if those are sound, tell the theorists to go back to the chalkboard.
In physics, we know that something we call gravity exists, some attraction between objects that have mass. Do physicists agree on a theory of gravity? Google it.
根据这个定义，经济学绝对是一门科学。

Was there a transcript for this show?

任何政府生产货币都是为了一个目的。它的目的是奴役人民，最终为军事工业工作…或者为军事工业的工人服务。如果人们是自由的，他们中的大多数就不会为军队生产东西。
Hence the suspicion of economics.

这不是游戏。西尔弗斯先生是一位有资格的专家，如果我们相信他的长篇论文的话。如果(这是一个很大的假设)我们确信经济学是一门科学，我们必须问:为什么这么多年来，它没有带来某种更好的种姓制度?我想我知道原因，或者说，杰瑞德·戴蒙德和其他一些人知道原因。从《第三只黑猩猩》开始，到《崩溃》(到目前为止)，戴蒙德在几次外出中阐述了人类为什么会不断地、虔诚地(啧啧)跟随自己的本能和文化适应走向灭亡。我不认为杰瑞德·戴蒙德是先知。但他和道金斯、古尔德和奥斯本等思想家所写的东西，肯定比当前的经济学教条更有说服力。Which, by the way, appears to be influenced (if not DRIVEN, by popular culture.)
I wrote about things such as cultural intractibility in 2000. No one read what I had to say then. Well, it is all coming down now. Told you so...