Both yes and no. Yes, absolutely, science is predicated upon experimentation and controlled variables in order to further understand and measure the world around us. However, also consider applied sciences, such as engineering, psychology, and medicine. Those are still very much scientifically based, but we can't do control groups for experimentation due to feasibility. It requires us to take corollary data based on individual data points, aggregating it over time to determine probabilities, best practices, and governing rules.
You have to be careful about the exclusivity in the mindset. While I certainly understand and appreciate the sentiment you're conveying, I would also warn you that it's a dangerous game. If you separate that the hard sciences are sciences, while the economics and politics are definitely not sciences, you may convince people that the scientific method should have no place in how they conduct themselves. You may suggest that what they are doing is inherently an emotive response to external stimuli, and you'll end up with those who make only emotional appeals winning the day, a frightening thought. As easy as it is to criticize our current system, and it definitely has its problems, but the honest truth is that the system is working pretty well. Guys like Richard Spencer are not actually in charge, implementing overtly racist policies that might see all minorities enslaved or eradicated. Groups like Antifa are not actually in charge, routing out anyone that they deem to be a fascist and putting these "undesirables" into reeducation camps. When you consider all the possible outcomes between utopia and the worst possible suffering for everyone everywhere at all times, we are actually doing pretty well. If we take a sense of objectivity away from the political sphere, what I suspect is that you'll see a shift towards that hell because you'll lose your ability to measure both good and bad, and that would be a bad thing.