> "hard sciences" also fail to produce results relevant to most people.
I don't see how you can say this, would you prefer to live 200 years ago before hard sciences had started changing peoples lives? Almost every convenience you see around you exists thanks to hard sciences.
That's an awful lot to put on hard science rather than, say, industrialization—the result of soft sciences just as much or even more so than hard sciences. Plus if you insist on only evaluating material concerns we still need to grapple with soft sciences to figure out why society is so horrible at distributing material goods and services in a rational manner.
My point was not to reject hard sciences so much as to emphasize you can't easily extract the consequences of them in isolation. It's nearly futile to even try. My apologies for poorly articulating this.
I don't see how you can say this, would you prefer to live 200 years ago before hard sciences had started changing peoples lives? Almost every convenience you see around you exists thanks to hard sciences.