Depends on how you'd define science. I'd probably say no. But then I'd say Neo-Darwinian Biology isn't a science either. Neither is String Theory. And other things.

Sociology, much of Psychology, much of Anthropology, Political Science.

In the actual article you make the correct point that economics is different:

economics, which subject is a product of the human behavior (mind) are something completely different from physics, chemistry, biology or engineering. That is sciences dealing with ‘the behaviors’ of the matter. This is the main thought contained in this text.

The simple fact is that economics or sociology simply cannot be like natural sciences. Our understanding on how the moons of Jupiter rotate don't effect the rotation of the moons of Jupiter. Our understanding of what happens when materials burn doesn't effect how materials burn. But our understanding of how the economy works DOES, when looked from the aggregate level, effect how the economy works. In economics as in social sciences there is this subjectivity which we cannot avoid. The models (typically mathematical) have this inherent limitation: they can model something in the real World rather well, but then the World and our behaviour can change. Chemistry doesn't change the same way.

And if you say economics isn't a science, well, history isn't a science. But I think without any understanding of history, you and me would be quite clueless about what is happening around us. In every respectable university they still study history.

have you read the entire text? Because it looks like you haven't...

?
If you refer to me, I did (the link above).

And I just wanted to give a logical reason why social sciences differ and cannot reach the objectivity of natural sciences. This limitation hardly makes the topic studied somehow less important.

Did you understand my point?

I asked if you read, because your 'explanation' is irrelevant. Here is the excerpt that explains it:
"What is the economics about? It is about people trading. People exchanging goods. So, the simplest, most basic system in economics are two persons. Trading. Exchanging goods. The simplest model here is one human being. Can anyone model mathematically a human being (behavior)? Can we model 2, 3, 5 persons? No. We cannot. The science based on mathematics is helpless here.

It means, we start with something that cannot be modeled mathematically. Not in the basic case, nor in the more complex cases. Then, why do we keep believing, that we can model it mathematically when the scale is very big?

The phenomena of the physical world follow the laws of the probability at all levels. You can toss one coin, you can toss 5 millions. The mathematical probability works. The laws of the probability assume, that the phenomena being studied follow certain rules at every level. It is unreasonable, faith based assumption, that something, what does not follow the laws of the probability in the simple cases, will follow them in the ‘large numbers’ cases. We’ve learned that the human behavior eludes the mathematical modeling. But we refuse to accept it, and we keep saying that for ‘big numbers’, the probability works. The prejudice of materialism stands strong. No matter the facts.
"
The problem you describe as: "Our understanding of what happens when materials burn doesn't effect how materials burn. But our understanding of how the economy works DOES, when looked from the aggregate level, effect how the economy works."
Is known to science for example as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It DOES NOT prevent the real science from using mathematical models.

PS.
I did ask this question, because if you really read my text and you still think the problem can be answered the way you put it, then it would mean that my text is.... well - not good enough.

It means, we start with something that cannot be modeled mathematically. - can we model 2, 3, 5 persons? No. We cannot. The science based on mathematics is helpless here. — philosopher4hire

Perhaps you should give a clearer reason for this as we do see that math can be used in modelling especially behavior of large groups. And statistics and probability theory do work.

The problem you describe as: "Our understanding of what happens when materials burn doesn't effect how materials burn. But our understanding of how the economy works DOES, when looked from the aggregate level, effect how the economy works."
Is known to science for example as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It DOES NOT prevent the real science from using mathematical models. — philosopher4hire

Still, going from quite exact calculations to probabilities does tell something. Besides, this is a far more simple issue. It isn't the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as this doesn't need at all quantum mechanics.

Many economists shove aside the problem with similar answers, assume probabilities or assume a game theoretic min-max solution or some dynamic models which gives a stable solution. But in doing so they make premises, that cannot be taken into account in all situations of the real world. That the social sciences are also subjective is a big problem.

It's not called the dismal science for nothing. The hard sciences are fairly good at predicting. Economics is better at analyzing the past.

It means, we start with something that cannot be modeled mathematically. - can we model 2, 3, 5 persons? No. We cannot. The science based on mathematics is helpless here.— philosopher4hire
Perhaps you should give a clearer reason for this
I will give such reason. All my writing is about giving a clear and complete answer. These are just the first pieces – leaving space for questions by definition. Anyway, in this example the reason is superfluous. Since what I wrote is a FACT. We cannot model mathematically a person behavior. And so, we can draw conclusions from the fact (from the objective situation) without answering what’s the reason.

“we do see that math can be used in modelling especially behavior of large groups. And statistics and probability theory do work.”
Firstly: as the behavior of large groups you probably mean the crowd behavior modeling – it is modeled using rather aerodynamics – liquid mechanics, not the statistics and probability.
Secondly: the statement “statistics and probability theory do work” is mathematically (that is: scientifically) false. It only does seem to work. It is very similar, but as I wrote:
“The laws of the probability assume, that the phenomena being studied follow certain rules at every level. It is unreasonable, faith based assumption, that something, what does not follow the laws of the probability in the simple cases, will follow them in the ‘large numbers’ cases.”
Shortly: from the mathematical point of view saying that for large groups of people the probability works is a lie. It is simple like that.

You wrote:
“Still, going from quite exact calculations to probabilities does tell something.” Read my discussion with quants linked at the end of my text. Basically: calculations are not science. You can calculate whatever you want. For a science you need to scientifically (that is: mathematically) move from one point to the next one. You need a mathematical PROOF. And as I pointed out there cannot be a proof, since we cannot model 1 person behavior. The rest is just a wishful thinking.

You wrote:
“That the social sciences are also subjective is a big problem.”
In my text you can find:
“Science have to be objective. Otherwise it is not a science.” If you say that social ‘sciences’ are subjective, you basically say they are not sciences. Just as the totalitarian soviet people’s democracies of the USSR or Eastern Europe were not democracies, in the first place.

And jgill wrote:
“It's not called the dismal science for nothing.”
I consider the constructs: adjective+substantive, where the substantive gets a substantially different meaning (often opposite), as an example of an intellectual illness. Such constructs cannot be accepted, since our language is meant to be informative, explanatory, for truth sharing. If we accept deception into our language we are doomed.

We cannot model mathematically a person behavior. And so, we can draw conclusions from the fact (from the objective situation) without answering what’s the reason. — philosopher4hire

Your reasoning that because we cannot model an individuals behaviour, mathematical modelling is useless is simply wrong. It's not a fact. It would be like saying these times that epidemiology is useless because it cannot predict if one person gets the virus or not, hence it's useless.

For a science you need to scientifically (that is: mathematically) move from one point to the next one. You need a mathematical PROOF. — philosopher4hire

This is a really bizarre rigid understanding of the scientific method. (Note also that in math there are unprovable objects and many things are uncomputable.)

I think it's pointless to go further with this discussion as it seems that you are not open to other views on the subject once you make such grand and decisive conclusions.

For a science you need to scientifically (that is: mathematically) move from one point to the next one. You need a mathematical PROOF — philosopher4hire

I'm not sure what you mean. For example, quantum phenomena can be modeled on mathematics that has not been proven valid. Feyman's path integral is a mathematical concept that functions well even when the functional integral involved is not completely understood. One uses what works in physics.

I consider the constructs: adjective+substantive, where the substantive gets a substantially different meaning (often opposite), as an example of an intellectual illness. — philosopher4hire

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dismalscience.asp

Thanks for your help jgill. Yesterday evening I wrote an answer for ssu. It was similar to my previous answers. In the morning I realized, it is not the right answer to be given. The problem is that ssu attacked not one of the many examples and details that I’d given in my text. Instead, he gave a very short ‘explanation’ on a very general level. To show it is correct, he would need several pages. And he would really need to think it through. Perhaps, he would realize then, it is not the correct remark.
Anyway, his objections show clearly that another planned piece is urgently needed. Namely, the article: “What is science and scientific method”. Unfortunately, many things considered as “science” are not a piece of a real science. For example, the mentioned by me in this thread “the crowd behavior modeling”. It is not a piece of science. It is the same kind of thing as the one mentioned by my in my discussion with quants:
“You may try to use the probability to data, which you do not know if it is random or not. But using it to data, when you know it is not random (in many cases, at least) is deceiving. Yourself and others. Of course, only if you consider yourself a scientist. If you call it science. You may calculate the variance of the post codes in your region. If you see any practical application of such move. But do not call it science.”
I know, that it really requires a good clarification. But I need time to write it down.

I do not know, if you read my text, jgill. If you have, you should be able (I hope) to figure out what is a possible answer to your remarks on some integrals in physics. And I will provide such answer in my text on science in general. In short: the things you mentioned are just imperfectnesses present always in the human thinking. Our limits. While my objection to economics as a science is fundamental, general, clearly visible in many aspects. Which I’d tried to show as completely (and shortly at the same time) as possible in my text. Anyway, at this point you’ve caught me. I cannot defend my statement as I’ve written it in this thread.
You see, in my texts published on the philosopher4hire every sentence is a result of a long and careful thinking. (Nearly) every paragraph could be developed into a long text. If you really want to point out weak elements of my thinking, try on those texts. You are welcome!

I’m sorry, ssu, that I cannot give a satisfying answer to your objections, now. I know that I make “grand and decisive conclusions”. But they are part of a complete worldview, explaining the entire reality. A worldview which is not syncretic, as everything else offered to us nowadays. I will need at least 20-30 texts to show it in full. And still many ‘bricks’ would have to be added.

Nevertheless, many thanks to you both.