Philosophy

At one time the English (for one) planted flags all over the damn place, confiscating land for the purposes of colonization. The flags were "real". The English language was "real". The military force that backed the colonization projects was "real". The colonizers were "real". The land being colonized was "real". The natives being displaced were "real". The laws being laid down in the colonized lands were "real". Not all being the same kind of thing, to be sure, but all "real". So, which is "objectively real" vs "physically real"? Which is "mere imagination" and which is "scientifically verified reality"?

Science itself is a mere process. It's a set of rules guiding procedure. Is science "real"?

The whole universe is a being in process. It is not static. Nothing stays the same and even our decisions regarding what are and aren't significant things is subject to change as we, being part of the ever changing universe, change our focus. What seems to be a mountain from one perspective is a hill from another, and from yet another is part of a smooth gradient.

If the argument were whether e.g. economics could ever be a science, according as definitions accepted by most physicists, that'd be one thing. I'd agree with those who say no, the object of study in economics is not the same as the object of study in physics, and it's a mistake to apply the same terminology and guidelines across the board. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the object of study in economics as not being "real", or "objectively real".