What exactly is the case that Postman makes against calling social science a science, and why is he making it?

Sociology

Topic: “Social Science As Moral Theology by Neil Postman” from Conscientious Objections

In his short essay, Postman appears to be challenging the view that social scientists have of themselves. He states that he “rejects the implication of the phrase ‘social science’, and that [they] do not “do science”. Rather they are, not unlike “moral theologians”, doing something like “storytelling”.<
If he is serious, Postman must then address what it is that social scientists point to when they insist that they are in fact doing science, such as social research, for example.

What exactly is the case that he makes against calling social science a science, and why is he making it?

What examples does he use to support his account of the social sciences? If social science is to be understood as “story-telling”, what exactly is the point of telling stories, or is that label supposed to be a criticism of storytelling?

If so, is he being critical of all storytelling, or just the sociological way of doing so, or perhaps how those scholars in the other social sciences (psychology, economics, anthropology, to name a few) tell stories? What’s he up to anyway?