Sociology - despite being a science - isn't required to be one in order to fulfill the objective we're discussing. It simply has to be capable of teaching people to identify things they take for granted [being universally true] to in fact be a consequence of their society.

To that degree, studying enough sociology to be able to make the statement, "Compartmentalization and hierarchy of academic subjects contributes to software engineers being unwitting used to replicate social structures," is not dependent on sociology being a science. It is true without relying on an arbitrary epistemology.

The main problem isn't that it isn't a science, but that to the extent that science is used in sociology, it's mostly badly done.

Findings don't replicate, data is used to tell lies, policy built on scientific findings is mostly unrelated to the findings, focus is primarily guided by culture instead of discovery or curiosity. I read a lot of sociology, and the general level of critical thinking and concern for the truth in journal articles is much lower than biology, engineering, or even economics.