Yes, of course you think I should drop the charge of scientism--because it cuts your field to the quick.

Scientism is the envy of the sciences in the humanities. Scientism is prejudice against unscientific, artistic disciplines (ones that are more upfront about their storytelling, their subjective hunches, pragmatism, philosophical or religious visions, and so on). In that sense, scientism drives some in the arts and in the “social sciences” to pretend they’re more scientific than they are. Scientism drove the neoclassical economists, whereas there was less of such a drive among the classical ones. Classical economists saw themselves as historians or as philosophers and political theorists, whereas neoclassical economists adopted the trappings not just of the sciences, but of the king of natural sciences, of physics, with their reliance on mathematical formulations and their adaptations of physicists’ concepts.

And I note that you again muddy the waters in talking about the natural and the social sciences, which makes your earlier answer, that economics is simply a social science misleading. You should have said that economics is neither a natural nor a social science, but a hybrid.

In fact, I would say, economics isn’t even that since it’s an obfuscating pseudoscience propped up by scientistic envy and mathematical camouflage. Economists hide between the two kinds of science, pressing their scientific advantage when they can and falling back on artistic or philosophical ambiguity when they must. All of which would be fine if economists were upfront about what they’re doing. But the haughty pretense persists.