Not really. I'm saying it about mainstream or orthorodox economics, or about the extent to which neoclassical economics or economism still influences the discipline.

I'm sure you're right that there's some overlap in the problems with all the sciences, especially the social ones. One point of overlap is the replication crisis. But I side with lots of other critics who think there are special problems faced by economists. Economics is an unusual social science, although it's certainly not the only one that wears its scientific badge too proudly.

Again, though, the semantic issue of what counts as a science isn't the issue I'm raising. As long as the academic culture is humanistic, the discipline's work will likely be scientific enough. It's just that the social sciences will also be largely philosophical and implicitly normative and even political, as classical economics clearly was.