Exactly. I&#x27;m also doubtful that taking a more real science approach to economics (hypothesis -&gt; experiment -&gt; result -&gt; rule) will work. It&#x27;s a science about societies and societies change.<p>For example, the financial markets are the most measured markets out there, with the most microscopic details recorded. One interesting thing that happens after financial
crashes are crises of theory. For example prior to 1987 American options didn&#x27;t show [volatility smiles](<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Volatility_smile" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Volatility_smile</a>). After the crash the smiles appeared, making the markets a very different place. The same happened after Subprime and the LIBOR scandal, when the notion of a &quot;risk-free rate&quot; suddenly disappeared: governments now had to compensate for their default risk and market quotes were unreliable. Academics still struggle with the whole notion, although it seems that the current practice is settling around OIS discounting and CVA&#x2F;DVA.<p>The point is, rules change. Hence in economics you can&#x27;t just empirically deduce a rule and let it be, you constantly have to recalibrate it.