I agree that this is a silly argument, or at least needs a lot more justification to make it work. As long as the explanation is not hidden, jargon, including mathematical jargon, is essential for accurate and compact communication. It can be used to obfuscate as well, but this requires a detailed argument, not handwaving.

Regarding testing hypotheses, I looked into the recent literature by the three most highly regarded economists as judged by h-index; as you say, Heckman and Schleifer, at least, have a strong bent towards experimental validation (e.g. proposing models for exerimental design and modeling transmission of wealth (with real data); or showing the centrality of overreaction in macroeconomics). Acemoglu seemed far more eager to introduce models in sexy areas than to rigorously test them. This is enough, I think, to establish that there is at the very least a strong strain of empirical grounding in economics presently--it is both done and presumably respected--which argues for economics as more science-like. However, the content of the papers suggests a more sobering view of the history. For instance, Heckman felt the need to argue against rational actor theory...in...2022 (mostly with citations using it in the early 2000s, but still!).

That we can find examples of theory-heavy validation-absent papers is not a sufficient endorsement of Benjamin's thesis: it is not that economics is a robust mix of scientific and unscientific approaches, but rather that it is a pseudoscience. While there may be pseudoscientific elements, those would need to be individually called out. The methodology is not (presently, among the leading economists) obviously grossly wrong.

Regarding your specific claim of altruism with smoking, I don't know--but I do know the campaigns for quitting smoking heavily referenced second-hand smoke which is entirely an altruistic concern. Maybe the campaigns were wholly ineffective. But someone was thinking that smokers are not purely self-interested. However, this isn't central to the debate.

Thanks for adding a more contemporary voice--my impression is that many of Benjamin's critiques were a lot more valid a couple decades ago than they are now. I had not personally kept track, and the sub-prime mortgage thing was an epic fail of economists: illustrating that they were both mathematically incompetent (because of the justification for the risk of mortgage-backed securities apparently not setting off all kinds of alarm bells with these guys going "OMG this is junk!"--and yes, a lot of it was done by finance/banker types not economists specifically but even then it's the economists' job to understand what's going on!) and politically opportunistic (I recall but cannot find economists praising the subprime mortgage market--I was alive in 2006 and paying some attention).