What? All science is based on theory. Some able to predict better than others. The fact that it’s hard to predict is a demonstration of how much is not known. There’s nothing wrong with trying to classify, organize, and to some extent understand the things that we CAN know about it. But this is really about macroeconomics. I think microeconomic (personal) understanding is better. But then you have to switch over to psychology, another science with a great deal of unknowables, to attempt to classify, organize and understand what can be known about human behavior.
Just never take an economists word as gospel - they would probably be the first to tell you not to do so. This points back at the media, which butchers economic reporting like they do all sciences. A scientist publishes something, a very specific, highly qualified finding like say, a new medication reduces tumor size in 62% of mice, and the media will take that and publish in banner headlines “MIRACLE CURE FOR CANCER!?!?!?!?”
“Science” is based on theory, as proven by being able to make predictions better than 1% of point. Engineering is theory able to make predictions better than 10% of of point. Anything less is shamanism. Macro-Economics is shamanism.