You're talking about macroeconomics, the exciting and unscientific field of how interest rates, markets, etc interact and the whole big world of wealth works. Obviously very difficult to get any real experimental data that isn't unrepeatable or biased. You can argue one position, or just as easily find data to argue the opposite position, and nobody will ever know which one is right.
Microeconomics on the other hand is much more a real science that helps answer boring practical questions like "How much capital should I invest in each product line? How much should I price this good at?" or my personal favorite because it is relevant to everyone, not just managers: "How elastic is the demand at firm X or in industry Y for laborers with skills like mine, and how elastic is the supply of such laborers?" Thinking about that question can really help anyone make choices about where to apply for work if you want your career to do well.
And since it happens at a small level there is lots of data so correspondingly more scientific certainty.
Microeconomics on the other hand is much more a real science that helps answer boring practical questions like "How much capital should I invest in each product line? How much should I price this good at?" or my personal favorite because it is relevant to everyone, not just managers: "How elastic is the demand at firm X or in industry Y for laborers with skills like mine, and how elastic is the supply of such laborers?" Thinking about that question can really help anyone make choices about where to apply for work if you want your career to do well.
And since it happens at a small level there is lots of data so correspondingly more scientific certainty.