"As the relationships between scientific practice and social, archaeological and historical interpretations continue to be debated in the discipline at large (McGovern 1995; Jones 2001; Knapp 2002), it should perhaps not come as a surprise that we insist that it is critical that all types or ‘genres’ of evidence be taken into account in relation to the tophets as both a historical phenomenon and a series of archaeological contexts. We all have to work within the limits of our own expertise, whether as scientists, archaeologists, philologists or epigraphers, but we should also strive in the humanities as much as in the sciences to apply the highest standards of academic rigour, without preconceptions, in order to formulate falsifiable hypotheses and interpretations that take into account the full range of available sources—however strange we may find the results..."
I don't know, that sounds like a pretty good "understanding of the scientific process". (Admittedly, I'm just an astrophysicist, so maybe I don't understand "the scientific process".)
Honestly this is a thin critique indeed. Social sciences are difficult precisely because they focus on phenomena with multi-factorial causes. Simple, high confidence, predictive theories are rare in psychology, sociology, anthropology etc, not because social scientists are committing a 'hoax'. In part because the factors impacting individual and collective behaviour are profoundly complex. And also because experimentalism in the social world is ethically, practically and epistemically fraught. We can't easily experiment on people or societies, and we can't stand as independent observers of phenomena of which we are part. We can develop hypotheses, develop experiments which attempt to falsify our null hypothesis, triangulate evidence from different observations and so on. We can model, observe, and infer. Over time we can develop frameworks that are measurably useful - from CBT to behavioural economics. But none of this is easy or definitive.
I note how common this perspective - that social science is some kind of conspiracy of faux expertise - is becoming on Hackernews. And how ironic it is, given that it's rooted in a lack of expertise or even familiarity with the topics critiqued.
This is just one forum in which the growing social skepticism of expertise in general, and science in particular is being articulated.
Furthermore, there is a difference between something being difficult and it being impossible. Many don't realize that astrology was, for many centuries a "real" science, at least as real as modern social science is. It only ended, with some irony, because of the Church. They claimed that astrology's claims to be able to effectively divine the future was heretical and blasphemous, which led to astrology to go from a staple of education and science to being a fringe pseudoscience used for entertainment purposes only. I've no doubt that many practitioners of the time did genuinely feel that what they were doing was simply very difficult. And in fact there probably are some incidental correlations one can draw based on groups across time, so they would be able to show some "real" results, even if the entire field was completely bunk.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psycholo...