I disagree. People working in the 'soft sciences' should still be aiming to work scientifically, so we should continue to describe them as such. In practice it

I disagree. People working in the 'soft sciences' should still be aiming to work scientifically, so we should continue to describe them as such. In practice it is very hard to measure up to the standards of good science in a lot of disciplines, where there's enough complexity to make constructing good experiments difficult. I'm thinking in these rough categories: 1. Real science that demonstrably works now. 2. An attempt at science that may become (1) in the future, but doesn't quite work yet. 3. Pseudo-science. The trappings of science without the intellectual honesty. 4. Claims about truth that don't pretend to be scientific at all. So, for category (2), we can have some respect for the scientific integrity of the practitioners, while at the same time being skeptical of the results and accepted theories for the time being. There's also the side-matter of avoiding the engineer's sneer towards people who try to understand things but refuse to learn the maths. I don't think it's a helpful attitude, although I don't know what the right fix is. I do partially agree with you though. It would be good to make sure that people making political decisions based on economics or sociology do understand that those subjects aren't quite ready yet.