In psychology on the other hand (a field I have a huge amount of respect for, incidentally), we're trying to ask questions about human behavior; everything we ask about is taken within a cultural context, predicated on assumed levels of "normal" behavior, and even assumes that humans /are/ repeatable in some sense (and a lot of psychology studies may not be repeatable at all...)

That repeatability question is a big one, I think: we're a lot more sure about our ability to prepare equivalent circumstances with silicon-28 atoms for an experiment than with people.

There's an absolutely unambiguous distinction between the "hard" and "soft" sciences

Social scientists hold themselves to fundamentally different standards on things like repeatability and predictive power and methodolgy than other fields. And whenever that difference can be quantified (e.g. statistical results), "different" means "lower". It's just a fact, and it's one most sociologists will freely admit, for example. You simply can't get the same sorts of results on humans that you can get on e.g. chemical reactions.

Unfortunately, soft/hard comes along with a value judgement that's not necessarily appropriate. But pretending like there isn't a clear difference between what are now referred to as the soft and hard sciences is disinegenious.