> That they don't call themselves science. Maybe call themselves studies and that they put more effort into what they call experiments.
I'm sorry, let me clarify: My question is not "what would you do with what we have now?", rather, it's "assuming we throw all of what we have now out, how would you do it in a way you consider to be science?" My assertion is that disregarding all our progress up until now in these fields on the grounds that they have not yet reached the level of maturity of physics or other hard sciences is unfair and will create a self-fulfilling cycle whereby we never gain any actual progress in these fields.
> This is frankly a terrible example. Because it does not tell the whole story does not mean it is incorrect. There is no unifying theory of sociology either.
Except that's exactly my point. Sociology doesn't tell the whole story, but your assertion that everything that comes out of it is tainted isn't right, either. You're comparing relatively nascent fields to relatively well-developed ones and expecting them to be exactly the same in terms of replicability, reliability and applicability, generally. That's unfair, and totally disregards history.
If we regressed even further, to before Newton, to the ancient Greeks or Romans or Egyptians, sure, they got a lot wrong - most things. But everything is a building block. I think that we are just now beginning to make real progress in fields like psychology, sociology, etc. You can call them "baby sciences," if you'd like, or invent whatever other word or term you prefer, but it doesn't change what they are, and it doesn't make them not worth proceeding with.
Further, we can't say that because some sciences progress quickly (e. g. computer science), all sciences should be expected to do so. As many in this thread have pointed out, good social science is harder to find and harder to do than good computer science. Progress will therefore be slower. It doesn't make said progress unimportant or impossible.