What a pointless argument. It is clear that economics is both a science and not a science. Yes, it has overlapping parts with other sciences, but also parts whi

What a pointless argument. It is clear that economics is both a science and not a science. Yes, it has overlapping parts with other sciences, but also parts which are unique to it, such as the human element, which make it difficult to fit into the category. But such fitting is not what matters. Let's move on to the real issue. That economics is difficult, which makes a large part of its application ambiguous, vague, subjective, hard to test, and etc. Through these properties, which are not prevalent in other scientific fields, economics lends itself nicely to exploitation by the natural human flaws. These flaws have to do with subjectivity which arise as a result of ambiguity and lack of fundamental understanding. For this reason, I consider economics to be a much more difficult field than other, more scientific fields. Of course, but what's next. How do we evolve the field to be more useful. How do we begin understanding it intrinsically. I don't know. But it would probably include a fundamental innovation in the scientific method itself which accounts for the human flaw to exploit ambiguity. But perhaps not. Perhaps it would eventually be ousted like an idea and replaced by a better hypothesis and working model.