I also think the idea of economics as a "value-free" science is nonsense. The roots of economics are in moral philosophy (Adam Smith was a professor of philosophy), after all.
I have no problem with the scientific method, or quanitification, or mathematics, or "rational choice" theory in economics, as long as their users understand that they are means to an end (understanding the way the world works), not the end in themselves. They are tools to be used wisely in the pursuit of knowledge, and they are not the only tools, as some "economic imperialists" fail to understand. These methods are not the only source of knowledge and wisdom.
But just because these methods are abused, or that some of their users make claims to universality that cannot be substantiated is no excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's just as big a mistake to throw out economic theory as "useless" as it is to proclaim it as the sole path to a proper understanding of the social world.
But it seems to me, TG, that you are in a minority in the economics world. All too many economists are happy to proclaim (and indeed teach students) that they are "value-free" or "value-neutral" (and/or universal) and all too many other economists are happy to let those statements go unchallenged.
You challenge them here, and presumably in other places, but you are a rarity.
The whole externalities debate is probably the best place to understand this problem. It's true in the abstract to say that most of the theory works, it's just that too many economists don't take proper account of the externalities.
But why don't they? And how can it be fixed?
There are answers to these questions, but it seems there is very little effort in the economics establishment to even take the problem on. It is hard then not to have the suspicion that the ideology of economics is dominating and distorting the practice of the discipline.
the ideology of economics is dominating and distorting the practice of the discipline
Yes, too many economists abuse their positions by making claims (i.e. how great the "free market" always is) that are not even substantiated by the basic theory or empirical work.
But, again, there are areas of real disagreement. Many economists think that externalities and information asyummetries are exceptions, not the rule, and not because they have "sold out." Now, I don't think you can resolve this disagreement with economic theory, as rdf says, you have to look very closely at how the world works to figure it out, and maybe the problem with much of economics is that it has become too divorced from the real world, too engrossed in math and greek symbols (some term this "blackboard economics"), not so much that it has sold out.
