Any "science" that can't reliably make reliably make predictions isn't a science. That's the litmus test.
edit: your take-away from this should be that you're mis-defining science.
edit2: you all forgot that medical and nutritional science has a reproducibility crisis, it's no less "science" for it. Add to the fact, the notion that nothing is reproducible in Economics is false. See for example: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/famous-economics-experime... , https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf0918
> edit: your take-away from this should be that you're mis-defining science.
No thanks.
Because they're indeed not sciences.
They call themselves that to attract funding.
Predictive power and reproducibility are defining characteristics of sciences.
Social "sciences" have neither and therefore aren't sciences.
At the same time, physicists have problem telling precise location and momentum of the atom (at the same time; precisely).
(footnote: I love physics more than economics, but world is not perfect and sciences are not perfect. Except for math maybe https://xkcd.com/435 . Perfection and usefulness are not the same)