I think that economics is a science, but contrary to the insistence of many economists I have known, it is absolutely a soft science. This is not a pejorative (though I reluctantly admit that I used to view it as such). My view is that economists would be wise to learn from their fellow social scientists in other fields. That would do a lot to help improve the rigour of economics.

You raise an interesting point, but there's more to science than just measuring stuff. Most of my beef with economics comes from how economists react when their model's predictions don't align with reality. If a physicist's theory makes incorrect predictions, then there's not really much wiggle room to explain away the problem. If a psychologist's theory makes predictions that aren't correct, then my impression is that "explaining away" errors by gesturing at additional complexities not able to be accounted for is a much more acceptable thing to happen. This isn't necessarily bad, but rather seems to be a part of how knowledge production happens in the social sciences.

I can't comment too much on the specifics, as I am very much not a social scientist. Like I said above though, I have come around from looking down on these fields. In fact, I've come to appreciate them precisely because the skills used in the soft sciences are so alien to me. Economics uses a heckton of quantitative methods, but the phenomena they study are fundamentally social in nature, and thus they reduce the utility of their work by trying to distance themselves from the social sciences

Depends on the question itself.