Is economics more of an art more than a science?

The social sciences only claim to be a science because of the method of analysis.  Economic analysis has to consider history, psychology, sociology, and geography.  Data is useful, but one must be careful to get the whole picture and not just see a part of the problem- the one that most see and respond to.  This is the Bastiat story of the Broken Glass and the starting point of the best economics book ever written (not by an economist)- Economic in One Lesson – Hazlitt 1946.  The ability to see the whole picture is what separates good economists from bad economists IMO.

Art to me is a creative enterprise more than an analytical.  But I do believe in creative analysis.  There are some very talented economists who can discern information from data that others miss.  This is the Levitt and the  Freakonomics crowd- ( and some from Malcom Gladstone)- I think John Cochrane, Scott Grannis, Mark Perry, Don Boudreaux, Diedre McClosky and Tyler Cowen also fall in this category.  On the other hand there are some very credentialed economists who are able to see relationships in data that are merely random (fooled by randomness), corollary or just incomplete  that only serves their political narrative.

Analysis is one thing- prediction is even more treacherous.