Bourgeois economist basically admits that neo-classical economics is pseudoscience.

[kandrathe]

It would be a bit much to ask, given that all of those words are defined relative to each other. If mainstream economists did heterodox economics, then they would either cease to be mainstream, or the economics would cease to be heterodox.

This process does occur across all disciplines, although for many the orthodoxy changes at a glacial pace. Which is in fact one of my beefs with the traditional systems of higher education, in that, the first step, and second steps assess if you are fully inculcated with orthodoxy. If not, you are not readily accepted into the Ph.d. club, and your opinions and/or journal articles, however compelling, are dismissed by the other prelates of the discipline. Which is why a patent clerk luckily ended up as one of the most brilliant minds we've encountered in physics. In 1920, in a letter to Marcel Grossmann, he wrote "Every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political affiliation." These are theories he wrote about and submitted for publication in 1905, that were debated and repeatedly debunked for over a decade

This sounds all too familiar. I guess for me the difference irregardless of knowledge discipline is between the closed minded adherent, and the rational skeptic. For science (irregardless of "hardness") at least, truthiness lies in rational, observable, and repeatable evidence. Which is perhaps difficult for assessing the value of predictive models for both economists, and theoretical mathematicians. I would then repeat your observation that it is frustrating to debate relativity theory with coachman and waiters, and especially when the debate is not specific to any given theory, but seeks to dump out the kit-n-caboodle of known physics because somebody somewhere said something that resonates "politically".