Reducing things to a binary choice, i.e. economics is or is not science, is perhaps a form of fast versus slow thinking?

Ya'll already know this, but for my own edification I'll restate it: Science and philosophy are interlinked; science is about formulating and testing hypotheses while philosophy is the study of problems relating to mind/existence/reality/values. Both rely on systematic approaches to characterization of the subject at hand.

With respect to the science component of economics we have come further than from where we started but we have some distance yet to travel, I think, before we can conclusively hang our hat on the predictions resulting from many of our models and theories...Keynesian or Hayek-ian.

Let's run a quick compare/contrast between physics and economics and see what we can see from this particular armchair...

Newtonian physics models commonly encountered systems (human scale) in states of equilibrium and in motion via the study of statics (sum of all forces x,y,z equal zero) and the study dynamics (sum of all forces x,y,z equal mass x acceleration), respectively. Quantum mechanics/physics is focused on atomic scale phenomena.

As I understand economics, commonly encountered systems are modeled at equilibrium via microeconomics and macroeconomics. This is not to say the associated math is any simpler than the math associated with physics as my Springer-Verlag series on financial engineering (stochastic calculus for finance I & II, stochastic differential equations, and monte carlo methods in financial engineering) attests .

Both physics (applied) and economics attempt to describe the how to of conservation/efficient allocation of energy/resources. In general, large groups of folks tend to get 'touchy' when there is a discussion regarding prioritization and allocation of resources, but hopefully us science types can stick to science side of things and teach each other more than we know individually?