Number 1. Mainstream economics and heterodox economics
To be consistent it should be homodox economics and heterodox economics. Those with routine knowledge of Latin would find nothing nefarious in such a distinction. Although we do have other names. Why not apologetic economics and non-apologetic economics? I am rather more fond of vulgar economics and economics.
Number 2. Is mainstream, vulgar, apologetic economics scientific?
They think so, and so do I. It is called scientific liberalism.
Number 3. The capital controversy.
Vulgar economists don’t care. See 1 and 2.
Relentlessly Progressive Political Economy 
Capital debates are central to understand history of economic thought. There is more to our discipline than dialogue with the mainstream. My take here http://nakedkeynesianism.blogspot.com/2012/03/capital-debates-brief-introduction.html?m=1
Agreed. It was a foot in mouth post.The capital debates are very important on several levels. But in light of 1 and 2, not because it changes much in the mainstream.
You mean Greek, not Latin. “Hetero-” is from the classical Greek “heteros,” other, just as “homo-” when it means “like” comes from the Greek “homos.” Think homology, not Homo Sapiens, where the “homo” is Latin for “man.” Now you may get on with the Econosnobbery.
Ok I am confused. So would homo erotic be Latin or Greek? I guess I just betrayed myself.