Why are Linguistics and Law considered as part of the "sciences" rather than "non-science" academic disciplines like say philosophy, history or engineering?
Seeing how both Linguistics and Law only study what has been created by mankind to begin with, or how there is virtually no room for scientists to actually test out various theories and models, it would seem, to me, that both of these fields fail to meet the criteria for being a "science", which is enlarging humanities pool of verified/easily-testable knowledge.
Or to perhaps phrase the question in a less abstract way, how do the Linguists' methods for reaching consensus differ from the methods of historians, which basically is "just" some majority of people agreeing on something based, ultimately, on their intuition. (In contrast to something like math where one can provide formal proofs, or sociology where one can run experiments and tests that meet certain criteria for validity and significance). Similarly, isn't Law "merely" applying the knowledge provided by sociology (and others) and thus more of an engineering discipline rather than a science?
Or is it perhaps like with Computer Science (and various other examples) where the field is just called a science for practical (political/economical/etc.) reasons, but actually fails to formally meet the criteria upon closer examination?
I hope no one is be offended by this. It is a serious question and I'm genuinely interested in objective answers.