> "Social sciences" are generally considered the "science of society," and the term comes from philosophers in the mid-1800's.

Some of the philosophers named it "science" of society in order to piggyback off the reputation of real science.

Because real science has such a great reputation, everyone from creationists ( creation science ) to social "scientists" ( social science ) have tried to associated themselves with science to gain credibility.

Social science isn't science. Neither is creationism.

Real science ( as most people understand it ) deal with natural laws and the natural world.

Society is an observable phenomenon that we are able to run experiments on and acquire empirical evidence about. Those experiments have so far been much more difficult to run, rely on poor measuring tools, and the limited data we have acquired is given too much weight. That's still science though.

They very much are a part of the natural world, and presumably have some kind of "natural laws" guiding them. Creationism is not, as it is about things outside our observable world

> Society is an observable phenomenon that we are able to run experiments on and acquire empirical evidence about.

Yes we can. But not in the scientific way. Society changes. You cannot replicate your test on a society because of that. Natural laws do not. So we can reliably hypothesize and test it.

> That's still science though.

It's not a science. By definition.

> They very much are a part of the natural world, and presumably have some kind of "natural laws" guiding them.

Yes. They have natural laws guiding them. It's called physic, chemistry, biology, etc. Social "science" doesn't delve into "natural laws". Society is run, not on natural laws, but human laws.

> Creationism is not, as it is about things outside our observable world.

No it is not. It is about our observable world but uses the bible ( another thing in the natural world ).

Laws, history, political science, economics, etc are are real sciences. They are political/propaganda/etc tools to shape society.

Using your logic, just because literature exists in the natural world, it must mean literature is a science. Obviously it is not.

Just because you can observe society doesn't make it a science, no more than the fact that you can observe a play or a concert makes them a science.

In order for your claim to hold, society has to be constant. But they are not. We must have multiple copies of the same society to test on. We do not. And societies are guided not by natural law, but human law. Which leads to an absurdity because different human societies have different laws. If we follow your logic, then means that there are different natural laws depending on where you live and what country you are from.

For example, that there are laws against interracial or interreligious marriages in some societies isn't a natural law, it's a human law. There is no science in social science. No more than there is science in religion or astrology.

Math is the foundation of science, right? Things in science are provable because of the rigorous mathematical proofs applied to data, correlating with reproducible results, is my perception.

There are many models of societies currently and previously in existence that can be measured, compared, and correlated with predictable cause and effects.

Society is not constant, it's probabilistic, like many topics in physics or other hard sciences.

Society has natural laws that can be mathematically derived and applied. Why can't science be applied to non natural processes? The point of science is to build a model that can be used to build other models, or ultimately be applied to game the subject.

Are you saying we learn physics just to learn it, not to manipulate it to somehow benefit ourselves? Don't we use research in physics as a tool to shape our world in exactly the same way we use research in social science to shape society?

Your definition of science seems to only exclude some folks from the term that are doing the exact same work in a different subject. The word science doesn't preclude a subject. I don't think your contrast is sound.

> Math is the foundation of science, right?

No. The scientific method is the foundation of science. Math is a wonderful tool that is used in science and other fields like business, architecture, music, etc.

> Things in science are provable because of the rigorous mathematical proofs applied to data, correlating with reproducible results, is my perception.

Nothing in science is "provable". Science is not math or logic. Go look up what a scientific theory is.

> The point of science is to build a model that can be used to build other models, or ultimately be applied to game the subject.

That is not the point of science. It is a benefit of science but not the point of science.

> Your definition of science seems to only exclude some folks from the term that are doing the exact same work in a different subject.

Not my definition. I didn't make it up. Just because you haven't a clue what science really is doesn't mean it's "my" definition. How about you take a few seconds and relearn what was taught in high school.

You have a bizarre notion that science exists to benefit ourselves. Religion, art, literature, music, business, etc also benefit us. Doesn't make it science.

Society is a human creation with human laws. That is no more "natural law" than the man-made laws governing chess or monopoly are "natural law".

Now that doesn't mean social "science" is worthy of study. Of course, humanities are worthy of study. But it isn't a science. I think politics is just as valid a field of study as physics or art or literature. But it doesn't make political science a science.

But your real worry is that removing science from social science takes away much of the credibility and respect that real scientists in physics, biology, chemistry, etc have earned right? In my experience, it's usually the social "scientists" who are the most vocal about latching onto "science" because they so desperate want cling onto that unearned authority and credibility.

But then again, it's also why creationists ( creation science ) also want to latch on to science. Pretty much frauds who want to manipulate society want something to give them credibility.

>No. The scientific method is the foundation of science

Simple question then, which aspect of the scientific method is not compatible with "human law?" I can develop a question about how society works, form a hypothesis, develop experiments, and analyze the results.

I may develop poor experiments and as a result only be able to provide limited analysis permanently tainted by a "human law" bias, but it would still be science.