In the infinite mystery of Is, there is no way for a presumed separate point of view (that would be what you and I call ‘I’) to know ultimate Truth. Since the ultimate Truth of any thing (or everything) minimally requires its apprehension from all points of view in space and time, no one point of view, limited to its here and now, can know it. Every point of view is inherently ignorant.
Science is not immune to this limitation on knowing Truth. Science is a method of creating narratives (stories) that describe phenomena. There is good science and bad science.
Good science starts from presuming its inherent ignorance and goes on to methodically create useful narratives. A useful narrative is one which accurately and repeatably predicts the future based on a set of starting conditions.
Bad science creates narratives that describe past phenomena without any predictive value. Bad science is not inherently less (or more) Truthful than good science. Bad science is merely useless.
Conventional economics is a set of narratives about past phenomena which has -- except in the most simple and artificial cases -- no ability to accurately and repeatably predict future phenomena. If conventional economics is any kind of ‘science’, then it is bad science; conventional economics is useless.
Incidentally, because of human proneness to cargo-cultism, many people think that a narrative with the ability to accurately and repeatably predict the future based on a set of starting conditions is the definition of Truth. This conceptual error can be cured by either doing good science or taking some acid. Or both.