But, we have not really looked at the world around us. What is the predictive power of either approach ? Can we see relationships in the world around us which prove or disprove either approach ?

The unfortunate thing is that economic theories are in principle validated by external evidence, but in reality they "fractionate" parts of what is observed, and it is very difficult to observe those parts. For Geonomics, charged rent is a combination of two components : land value and improvements. It takes some juggling to separate out these components.

But, there are places where rather than developing from assumptions to consequences, Geonomics does say "we taxed based on land values here, and the rent charged to tennants did not go up".

Now, this would only demonstrate one particular Genomic principle, you're drawing a long bow to assume it validates the whole theoretical framework. But, it is certainly a start.

However, lets just say that getting into this sort of "experimental verification" of different theories is a whole arena of debate in itself. There's quite enough to dissagree with in Geonomics without going there.

But nevertheless, it is an area worth acknowedging. In reading about assumptions and a theory which develops their consequences, it is possible to forget that these things must in fact relate to the real world.