Ok, if we demonstrate that the movement of the planets is not accurately predicted using a well loved system is it appropriate for us to be held to having to invent a new system before publishing?
It might be that there is another planet, or it might be that our understanding of the universe is incomplete. It seems to me that the information that there is something out there that isn't covered by our predictions is quite useful for directing science.
> Ok, if we demonstrate that the movement of the planets is not accurately predicted using a well loved system is it appropriate for us to be held to having to invent a new system before publishing?
Absolutely not! That would be irrelevant, out of scope, and completely unreasonable.
That said, if you're going to opine that you have a better model, you might be best advised to bring data that demonstrates it.
There are shades of grey here. In an absolute sense Newtonian mechanics worked until the systems of measurement got good enough to show that there were problems. Economics seems to be in quite a different situation - it's been shown not to work at all. Economists seem to have very little predictive capability, they predict poorly, measure things that matter little and deliver interventions that alter the wrong things. An alternative doesn't have a high bar to jump.
It might be that there is another planet, or it might be that our understanding of the universe is incomplete. It seems to me that the information that there is something out there that isn't covered by our predictions is quite useful for directing science.