Actually to my mind that is all you need for science: observe, make a falsifiable hypothesis, try to falsify your own hypothesis.
That is... not most economics.
They have most of the same issues as economics (modulo the political stuff), but everyone seems OK with it.
Also, Popper's falsification is a pretty unrealistic account of how science actually works, and it only really works as advertised where you can run effective experimental designs (which economics and geology, amongst other disciplines) have a problem with.
If you have a theory that is impossible to falsify experimentally, we're no longer talking about science (at least if your idea of science is the pursuit of objective truth). Modern "science" running amok with people more concerned with attempting to prove themselves correct than find the truth doesn't change that.
> Popper's falsification is a pretty unrealistic account of how science actually works
That's the rub though. A pretty strong argument can be made that "science" is not working and that "scientists" have lost their way, if you look at things like the reproducibility crisis.
Even assuming what you say is true, if not experiments and attempts at falsifying your ideas, how does one pursue the truth?
How would you suggest we run randomised experiments on the climate (or the macro-economy)?
How do you define scientist, and who else isn't included?
Like, micro-economists do a lot of interesting experimental work that certainly seems like science.
Macro-economics is pretty much entrail-reading because we fundamentally don't understand how the modern economy functions, and is massively political and hijacked by a variety of interests, but that's a subfield that even economists agree is problematic.