Why not all economists are austrian economists

In the hard sciences, it is much easier to conclusively and empirically demonstrate your theoretical claims. A biologist wishing to back up his claim that a certain hormone increases the amount of testosterone in a lab mouse can create a very controlled experiment, compare a large experimental group against a large control group under otherwise equal conditions, and demonstrate his claim very conclusively.

Economists, on the other hand, cannot do this. It is far too difficult to construct macroeconomic experimental and control groups to test whether, for example, the gold standard is more conducive to productivity or less, or whether and to what degree price floors are constructive or destructive. You cannot observe the economy under a microscope. With little more than theory to back our claims, it is no wonder that there is more disagreement in the social "sciences" than in the hard sciences.

However, given the funding source, it should be obvious that the state (who provides nearly all the economic funding) would be biased against a school that claims it should not exist and toward a school that advocates its existence.