I agree that there are many valid criticisms of neoclassical economics, ranging from assumptions of equilibrium and human rationality, to the emphasis on econom

I agree that there are many valid criticisms of neoclassical economics, ranging from assumptions of equilibrium and human rationality, to the emphasis on economic growth clashing with the reality of finite ecological resources on Earth. However, I'd ask if you typically expect a field of study to be perfect before you'd consider it useful? Do you expect psychology to completely understand the human brain before you'd seek help for substance abuse? Or for physicists to understand super-symmetry before you'd use a cell phone?