b) How's sociology not a 'real' science?
It depends on the definition of science, and that's why there's a problem (as far as this could ever been seen as a problem). Still, if economics and psychology can be considered as 'sciences' entirely and without question, then there's really no logical reason not to include sociology as well...
Of course, if this is a problem, then the real problem is the insistence that an academic subject must be a 'science' in order to have any value. Which, frankly, is just a bigotry, and a particularly petty one at that.
I don't know entirely, but a lot of it will be to do with the unusual nature (both now and in the past) of American sociology. There was for a long period of time a massive emphasis on quantitative research aimed at supporting the status quo from a positivist perspective (now the tendency is just to produce reams and reams of quantitative research with no particular purpose whatsoever; only a slight exaggeration). The Chicago School (which argued that cities were essentially organisms) were especially influential, and American universities were strongholds of Functionalism decades after that approach had become a stock joke in European departments.
Though one of the American reactions to Functionalism (Ethnomethodology) was/is a pretty hilarious piece of IRL trolling.
