I'll concede physics, and settle for the C grade for my Etymonics. But
unless you're arguing for the possibility of rigorous economics (I
hope not) the spirit of my point is the fault-line between praxis and
what is broadly universalisable.
Is "political science" real? (I personally think there's a case), but
why did that have to arise besides politics? I studied electronics and
am happy to report, compared to its foundation in physics, it's an
ever changing craft of black magic and tricks you can do with silicon
and electrons. Need proof? Where is the craft of thermionics today?
As for economics, I don't really know. Some days I have hope in its
use. Other days I think its very conceit is the root cause of much it
sets out to solve.
There isn't. There's a practice and set of local "crafts pertaining to". That's why it's econom(ics). [-ikos, -ique]
Like electronics, acoustics, politics...
As opposed to being econom(ology), a more systematic science [-logy (logos)] being a branch of knowledge.
Even hardcore economists aren't keen to raise it to the level of a "science".