Certainly, yes. But I'll be devil's postmodern advocate and say to be wary of all science which claims to be wholly objective and without influence.

>Well over 90% of biology, chemistry, and physics experiments are controlled and replicatable.

This isn't the case. The replication crisis affects all fields

You need a source. You can’t just say that. There is a reproducibility problem in every major field so you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

It’s much easier to run controls and perfectly sound experiments for hard sciences.

Social science experiments run into ethics issues fairly frequently. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be studied, but they do need to be interpreted differently.

A good number of astronomy papers are inherently unrepeatable. You can have someone else double check your math, and if you're lucky, there will be multiple observations of the same event, but, uh, to put it simply, a star only explodes once.

There are plenty of studies that are replicable and plenty that don’t rely on self reporting as well

As for self reporting, yes people lie, which is why we formulate questions and interview types that lead to less lies. However some studies are by definition going to need self reporting and that self reporting is literally what makes the most sense

I’ll give you an example of what I do. I’m in the field of Social Network Analysis. We blend together various methods and fields from neuroscience, to psychology, to graph theory, and more. We try to analyze the characteristics and behaviors of social networks and it’s different types and we are able to do so using things like math. However, when we want to see who all is in someone’s social networks, we can either observe them or just ask them. So usually the first person they’ll name is their wife and maybe their kids and what not and we can work with this data. There’s little to no reason to believe they’d lie about that and studies have shown that in some regards they don’t. Hell it’s quite funny because we will get brutally honest answers on anonymous surveys were people will mention their spouse, but also the person they’re having an affair with.

The underlying driver in social networks is that of the homophily principle. To sum it up, think birds of a feather flock together. You are more likely to marry, be friends with, get along with, etc people who have similar interests and appearances to your own. This may sound like common sense but for a long time people assumed that “oppposites attract”

This principle holds true in literally every single society we have studied ever. Even primitive societies hold true to this. My favorite explanation for this is that there’s less cognitive work involved in meeting similar people and thus you’re able to move through beginning stages of a relationship much sooner. So for instance, if you were an expert in this area like I am, this whole comment would be for nothing and we could discuss finer social network theories such as Blau space or information heuristics.

SNA is the backbone behind many things such as terrorist intelligence gathering, networks, and logistics, as well as other covert Social Networks. It’s also used in neuroscience when studying social information that is stored, as well as in emergency response protocols.

TL:DR we are trained scientists just like any other. We are aware of the foundations of science, it’s limits, and societies limits, and employ tricks to get around such things. You are mistaken with self reporting as research shows people get extremely honest with anonymous surveys. I’m not mad, but there’s enough misinformation about social science as is and how rigorous it is. In cross disciplinary meetings, more often than not it’s my lab that has to remind other scientists of some of the basics, simply because we have to be the most careful out of most disciplines.