Presenting your work pro-forma as a set of falsifiable hypotheses does not in and of itself imply any honesty, when the shared premised of both author and peer reviewers is that a core set of long falsified assumptions are permitted for analytical tractability.

The utility maximization assumption is not merely "falsifiable", but long since falsified. Even granting the "as if" arguments defending its use, strictly convex preferences cannot be assumed for any choice prior to the determination whether or not to evaluate a departure from previous behavior, since the evaluation itself has a cost and so within a neighborhood of the previous behavior, repeating the behavior without assessing the choice is superior to deciding to evaluate and determining that the preferred outcome is in the neighborhood of the prior behavior. Neutrality of money is clearly false, yet widely assumed for analytical convenience.

The "approach" is fundamentally dishonest when it follows the form of scientific exploration of economic behavior but is not, in fact, pursuing actually scientific cause and effect explanations of that behavior. That is not being scientific, it is being scientistic.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.