Is Economics Broken?

I study Economics at uni.

I once asked a professor at York whether he considered the subject a science. He studied Physics at undergrad level and believed that Economics was harder, and comparable to science, because it makes assumptions. E.g. physics assumes frictionless planes, economics assumes rational behaviour. This implies that there's an energy to compare it to science, perhaps for prestige reasons. Is economics too 'hard' to quantify it amongst other social sciences? Recent Nobel Laureates consider it drifting further away from maths in lieu of concepts like organisational behaviour, which contrasts with the the York professor's view.

I think the subject is changing, and has changed, in recent years. There's definitely more acceptance of psychology and philosophy, and more integration of people into models. There's also more focus on financial crises in light of 2008/09, in the hope that we don't exacerbate the self-interested motives of well remunerated financial executives, which is shown through philosophical adaptations of ethics into branches of economics.

In my view, Adam Smith published early texts in economics. Very little incorporated maths, and his assumptions were consumer-centric. It should remain a valuable social science.