The thing is, if you stop for a moment, spend a considerable amount of time of studying hard sciences, and apply that worldview to almost any "hard science" ..

The thing is, if you stop for a moment, spend a considerable amount of time of studying hard sciences, and apply that worldview to almost any "hard science" .. most of the hard sciences haven't been or are not that hard. Still, step by step (and misstep) and luck we have progressed forward. The "objective data" isn't some inherent peculiarity of hard sciences. It's a feature of long tradition of aspirations towards intellectual honesty, distilled in the usage of mathematical methodology. You can get a good data softer sciences, but this demands lots of work and paying attention to proper statistical methodology. It gets more difficult less you can apply mathematics, but there's nothing in particular that makes bullshitting acceptable. Even in non-mathematical fields such as history and archeology, there's still possibility of hard evidence; it just requires lot of humility what you reasonably can infer from it, and sometimes you have to accept that there's not enough data for making conclusions. The possibility of knowledge requires that everybody does their best to pay the necessary respect to the gods of science that enable its existence. Science is a social project that can't function unless participants believe in it and demand intellectual rigour of each other, work to reduce bullshitting. Giving up and joining the bullshitters does not make you more knowledgeable; it just amounts to treason.