Psychology and neuroscience can be tested on an n of greater than 1, unlike economics.
To test many hypotheses, sure. However, when it comes to matters of consciousness and intelligence in neuroscience, things can get sloppy and there is disagreement about what even constitutes a meaningful question, much less what is measurable. The same goes for psychology. I'm not saying that there are perfect analogies, but are far better than making one to medicine. But even then, It would be fabulous to hear an amateur discussion about bioprosthetic valves at a dinner party. The very premise of Glover's argument is insulting. As you mentioned, a liquidity trap is not particularly opaque idea, and the worst thing that can happen is that a few people debate over the definition of a 'liquidity trap' and walk away better for it.