[whyenot]

> Social sciences are a humanities. The term social science was invented fairly recently by sneaky academics to leech off the credibility of actual science.

> The name social science was invented by hacks just like creation science was invented by hacks because real science ( biology, physics, chemistry, etc ) has such a good reputation and they didn't so they decided to manufacture some credibility by attaching "science" to their fields.

Do you have anything to back this up? According to Wikipedia's rather extensive article on the history of the social sciences, the term first appeared in 1824, and the discipline was pretty well established by the turn of the 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_social_sciences

[dntbnmpls]

> Do you have anything to back this up?

Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_social_sciences

"The term "social science" first appeared in the 1824 book An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human Happiness; applied to the Newly Proposed System of Voluntary Equality of Wealth by William Thompson (1775–1833). Auguste Comte (1797–1857) argued that ideas pass through three rising stages, theological, philosophical and scientific."

What do you think rising through theological, philosophical and scientific implies? The lowest being theological, the highest being scientific?

1824 was around the time of the scientific revolution and enlightenment. Everyone wanted to latch onto the good name of science.

"Karl Marx was one of the first writers to claim that his methods of research represented a scientific view of history in this model."

"One of the most persuasive advocates for the view of scientific treatment of philosophy would be John Dewey (1859–1952)."

From history to philosophy to politics, everyone wanted to associate itself with "science" because of the credibility it brought.

Even religion got into the act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

[whyenot]

The article on Wikipedia doesn't support your assertion that the scholars who coined the term "social science" did so "fairly recently," and that they were "sneaky academics" and "hacks."

Well, unless 1824 is "fairly recently" (to be generous, let's say a century ago, when things really got going), and Comte, Durkheim, Weber, and yes, even Marx are "hacks" (they may be other things, but hacks?).

[dntbnmpls]

> The article on Wikipedia doesn't support your assertion that the scholars who coined the term "social science" did so "fairly recently,"

Fairly recently is subjective. But the article showed that they coined it because of the cachet attached to science at that time.

You can downvote and find things to nitpick, but ultimately I'm right. Just like creation "science". Political "science" is as much a science as creation "science". That isn't to say political "science" is nonsense like creation "science". It's an academic field that belongs in the "arts and humanities" category.