Not sure if that quotation inspires much confidence. Economics has math behind it. Subjects like Sociology have none of the rigor of math and are thus a large waste of time.
This is exactly the fallacy he is addressing. Math = rigor, so clearly the discipline which uses the most math is the most rigorous, right? But actually math is only useful when it is based on a useful model of reality. If the underlying assumptions are unfounded or faulty, then math does not help you at all.
The takeaway is that the math used in econ obscures the truth while lending a fake gravitas to pure opinion.
At least sociology is honest that they're going pure opinion.
Do you imply that philosophy and sociology as disciplines are not rigorous? This shows a very weak knowledge of those disciplines, and of maths-focused economics if you still believe that maths = rigor.
Not philosophy, but sociology yes.
The math is a red herring. It's the buried assumptions that underpin the math which is where the real bullshit usually lies.
Exactly. The answer is not less mathematics, but more empirical work.