Depends on how "soft" the science is. You'll see it a lot in Psychology, for example. There is a clear hierarchy in the sciences as well, due to the material different disciplines cover and how they are interconnected. Perhaps the mistake is in thinking that certain items in logic have not derived at least in part from science or math. For example, science is a form of inductive reasoning, but it is through testing this method of learning that we know it works, not by simple argument of why it should be able to work.
For the sciences, in order of most to least accurate:
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Psychology
Other social sciences
(the added space for more distinction between highest potential accuracy).
These distinctions make more sense when you consider that these are interconnected with each other. Chemistry functions on principles of physics, and biology works on principles of chemistry, so it would make sense that any error at the top would leak down to the disciplines below it, which would then add their own errors and so forth. The reason for the huge jump in errors for Psychology is that this is where subjectivity really starts to become difficult to avoid when it comes to evaluating and interpreting data, and it just gets worse when it comes to the rest of the social sciences. This is also why some people claim that the social sciences shouldn't even be called sciences. This is something pretty much everyone in a STEM field will learn about, though more through casual conversation than actually in a lecture. For example, when a physics student asked me what my major was, when I responded Biomedical sciences, they said "ha, my science is higher than yours". -_- to which I responded "which one of us is more likely to cure cancer"?