I am reminded of this XKCD comic:
Economics would probably between psychology and biology...at least in the estimation of its practitioners. Having spent my undergrad in physics, the concept of a pecking order existing based on purity where people are dedicated to demonstrating that their field is a genuine science with a high degree of rigor and wide-reaching applications is entirely accurate.
The problem is less where economics ranks in this "pecking order" than the fact that this mentality exists at all. How objective and empirical a given field isn't a mark of its prestige or the quality of its practitioners - it's dictated by the kind of phenomena it's trying to understand. Human processes, like economics, sociology and politics, are inherently less predictable and measurable than natural ones. Sociologists and (some) political scientists have the humility to recognize that, but economists have deluded themselves into thinking that they reduce fundamental human activities to a series of models and equations. And what's worse, theoretical economists in particular show little interest in the empirical validity of their models' derivations - in this respect mirroring the worst behaviors of some theoreticians in the "hard" sciences as well.
