[jbmorgado]

I think this in fact comes from this engineering of language in order to pass some agenda.

You create something that is really not science and call it social "sciences" and then you put inside those stuff like economics and all the shebang.

Of course that some people think those are actually scientific and then, when all the predictions fail not only stop believing the social "sciences" like economics, but in fact start looking at all sciences, even the real ones, as some fake agenda from someone.

In the end it's a double wrong, first because you are telling people that social "sciences" like economics actually predict anything and second because we are destroying the public view of real science.

I think what we need is some outreach program that explains people what the real sciences are in order to regain credibility for science and to get people suspicious of any predictions coming from social "sciences".

Not to say that some social "sciences" are not worthy of research, but we must understand that they are only ad hoc fields of knowledge and that they don't predict anything. For instance like history, a respected area that doesn't need to get some fake validation from calling itself a science.