One possible advantage the "harder" sciences have is that another study that builds on the previous one can in some ways act as a replication.

If I publish something claiming bacteria has a gene X that produces phenotype Y, then a subsequent study that transfers gene X into a different bacteria must also observe Y. Otherwise something is fishy, and often the second set of researchers will go back and reexamine the original result.

It's rare that work in science is directly, point for point replicated, it's unsexy, expensive work. The fact that the harder sciences have somewhat of a built in control mitigates but by no means eliminates the risk of bad science surviving.

I can't think of an analogous process in the softer sciences. Seeing if a phenomenon is replicated in a different context does not implicitly re-test the original work in the same way.