There is no actual "science" in Social Science
Unless of course by Science you mean hyperbole and conjecture
You might be surprised that I say this, but I think the social sciences (at least some of them) could
actually be really useful, though not they way they are done now. There are two big problems with social science:
1. They are ridiculously politically biased. There are in fact studies that show that when papers are submitted to academic journals with identical methods and research questions come to opposite conclusions, the paper with the conclusion more favorable to liberal ideology is more likely to be recommended for publication. And you can also see it by those just blindly accepting that because young black men are more likely to be killed by police than others, that there is racial bias in police killings. And there's the intense opposition to any research showing differences between the sexes are innate and not driven by society. I could give many more examples.
2. The replication crisis. People who are in the social sciences and psychology and such tend to be people that like science but aren't really strong in math. As a result you get illiteracy in statistical methods and the "p-hacking" phenomena and have only positive results getting published when many conclusions in papers that are codified into the canon of a science that can't even be replicated.
Of course, they like to hide behind the "we're
the experts" thing, but if we're being honest and not politically correct, we all know the lay-person can much more easily read and understand a published paper in the social sciences than a physics journal.
BTW, if you think I'm just parroting right-wing talking points here I'm not. There's quite a few pretty influential people in academia like Steven Pinker (who can't really be accused of being right-wing) who are basically saying a lot of the same things. If done rigorously social science would probably run over a lot of both the political left and right's sacred cows.