The first step is always admitting you have a problem. That’s what some brave economists did recently, when they took a closer look at their own track records.

What they’re proving is that economics — called the “dismal science” by Thomas Carlyle — produces forecasts about as accurate as any other kind of forecasts, and is much better at evaluating the past than predicting the future.

“These are hard times for economists,” writes the Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson. “Their reputations are tarnished; their favorite doctrines are damaged. Among their most prominent thinkers, there is no consensus as to how — or whether — governments in advanced countries can improve lackluster recoveries.”

What’s notable now is that they’ve found this out for themselves.

“Recently, economists at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published a retrospective study of its economic forecasts,” Samuelson reports. “This qualifies as an act of bureaucratic courage, because the record was predictably dismal. Not only did the OECD miss the 2008-09 financial crisis, but it routinely over-predicted the recovery’s strength. In May 2010, for example, the OECD forecast that the U.S. economy would grow 3.2 percent in 2011. Actual growth was 1.7 percent. This is a huge error, and there were larger misses for some European economies.”

That study found that “groupthink” prevails among economists; when an opinion is popular, it’s more likely to be adopted by other economists.

In general, the study found that economists underestimated how widespread an economic malaise in the United States would affect the world’s economy. And it showed that tightly regulated economies tended to fare worse in a recovery than adaptable economies.

Economists also jumped on the “Keynesian” bandwagon, blaming austerity (budget cuts) for the weak recovery.

“Just follow the advice of John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), they say,” Samuelson explained. “When the economy suffers a massive drop in private spending, government should offset the loss by increasing its budget deficits. Europe’s budget cuts were too aggressive, they say, while U.S. ‘stimulus’ policies were not aggressive enough.”

But history hasn’t borne out that view. Austere governments didn’t do any worse than those that tried to stimulate their own economies in this most recent recession. And the United States didn’t do markedly better.

“Federal budgets ran massive deficits — $6.2 trillion worth from 2008 to 2013, averaging 6.4 percent of the economy (gross domestic product),” Samuelson adds. “Nothing like this had occurred since World War II. Yet, the economy limped along.”

So what lessons have economists learned? Well, none — yet. It takes time.

“The Great Recession and financial crisis changed behavior in fundamental ways that economists have yet to incorporate fully into their models or theories,” he says. “The widespread faith that modern societies were sheltered from deep and sustained economic setbacks has been shattered, causing consumers, business managers and bankers to be more cautious in borrowing and spending.”

Economists know that faith in their discipline has been fatally compromised. Some, at least are willing to acknowledge as much. That’s why the study commissioned by the OECD is a positive sign. Admitting there’s a problem is the first step toward recovery.