The most charitable thing ever said vis-a-vis economics being a science is that it's the "dismal science". Most economists have no idea of how to carry out proper scientific experiements on their hypotheses, and consequently come out with half baked ideas not fit for use (for example the deregulation craze of the last 30 years).
Frankly most serious scientists scoff at the idea of economics being a science.
Well I must agree that there is way too much bad science and I guess this is the old language - continental divide we encounter here.
As I learned it and it is understood in the German speaking World, there's three different subcategories: 1) "Exact" Sciences (although they are not at all exact either, natural sciences like physics, chemistry and so on), 2) Social Sciences that cannot be exact due to the "societal" nature of their fields of study (economy is just one of those, politics, sociology and ethnology are others) and 3) Sciences of the Matter ("Geisteswissenschaft" where the field of study is entirely "made up by humans", like any language, literary, History or Law).
Each of those has different methods, but that doesn't make them any less scientific. After all, the primary method of quality control in modern natural science is how much you have been citated and peer review doesn't really scream good to me imo.
In the end, it's the English language that makes the distinction between Science and Arts and you just need to look at the differen implementation of the bachelor/Master of Arts/Science in the various European Universities to see that this differentiation doesn't really apply to Continental Europe. English being the primary language has - on sites like wikipedia - to take the cultural ideas of the world and not just the maternal English speakers into consideration, that's why Imo "economists as scientists" got on there, and it isn't technically a mistake. Imo.
Sorry, rant over.
