It's a stretch to call that 'optics', but let's stick with it anyway

No. Let's not. That "lens" wasn't used for astronomy so it's completely irrelevant to the analogy.

It's not like there was no astronomy before that, not to mention cultures that discovered it later. By the time there was a lot of work in astronomy that was absolutely scientific, mostly in Babylon you'll find that they knew about the importance of cycles in astronomy, often successfully predicting events by knowing their frequency. And for centuries to come discoveries made using optical inventions could be explained to someone not familiar with them. Models were made, each a slight improvement from the previous one, until the contemporary one, still imperfect, but the best we have. In the long term, science is about iterative, not revolutionary progress.

But...to stay in the analogy. Look at the depth of understanding. Since the invention of the telescope our understanding of the universe and celestial bodies has improved at an incredible rate. We've also been able to disprove a lot of outdated simplistic ideas.

Great, sudden leaps are usually suspicious, because mistakes and lies are short-lived.

I mean, lies are not short-lived. Flat earth, geocentric solar system?

But we have no way to prove it right either.

The models are provably better.

In math, for example, the most sophisticated proof can be translated into simple, high school-level steps.

...this isn't true.

I understand that economy is different, but if your new model proves everything older than itself wrong, well, one extra proofreading of your assumptions, the data you feed it, etc, won't hurt.

huh?

I'm just saying the modern economics has a better and more complete understanding of how economies work. So, you are doing a disservice to read only old material.