In your earlier posts it appears that you consider experimental science
(particularly physics) to be superior to historical and nonexperimental
social sciences. May I suggest that this definition of "real" science is
somewhat narrow?
Experimental science involves an inductive approach, which can never
lead to 100% certainty in knowledge. I would suggest that all of science
and rational inquiry is filtered through our interpretive lenses, and
all can lead us toward the Truth, albeit imperfectly, and can never be
exhuastive. To claim that one is superior to another requires that you
demonstrate how one can be more independent of interpretation and bias
than the others.