"Sciences" in this case deserves an extra-large pair of scare quotes. If science is the process of arriving at objective fact by testing hypotheses in a reproducible way, just about any field with the root word "social" can be excluded.
That doesn't mean they provide nothing of use, merely that they aren't science and lack rigor. Careful not to confuse the two stances.
I'd be curious as to how you find the boundary of science and decide what "rigor" is. The closer I look the more I find this border is cracked and broken, and the notion of a "science" that produces "objective fact" is a fiction, in the "hard sciences" as much as in the soft ones.
Recently my favorite koan on this subject is from Deirdre McClosky's "If You're So Smart":
>The market for apartments in New York, says the economist, is "just like" a curve on a blackboard. No one has so far seen a literal demand curve floating in the sky above Manhattan. It's a metaphor.
The same is true in physics (etc.), where we have models that describe the world - but these models are only responsible to our subjective demands on what they must do for us. If they lazily drop off in the area around a black hole or in the interstices between galaxies, well, so what? We can still tune our GPS satellites. The only "objectivity" here is what the priests who currently reign happen to tell us is the edge where we can stop worrying.
This argument is dangerously close to a problem I'd like to call "semantic wankery". As in, by defining first terms fuzzily enough, anything can be equated to anything else.
What is rigor? Everything is subjective. Well, great philosophical position and all, but when we're talking about evaluating whether what we know is actually reflective of reality, remarkably unhelpful.
Reality being classified as that which exists despite individual opinion.
Look up through a clear sky, stars can be seen. Get a telescope, and we can start describing properties of those stars. Better telescope? More properties. Anyone can reproduce this. Or perhaps the moon - we've sent people there. We know that it exists and is a place a person can walk the same way we're sure that Japan exists and is a place a person can walk.
The whole of humanity deciding tomorrow that the silver disk in the sky no longer exists? That rock is still there and still influencing our tides.
The semantic wankery is a real problem. What's fuzzy is you saying things like 'the properties of stars' as if those exist in any way other than our description of them. Sure, there may be a material reality. But a star does not "have mass", mass is only our (current) description of some unknowable ineffable thing.
And it is very important to appreciate that there is no such thing as "mass" out there, mass only exists in our heads. Mass may be straining towards a point informed by reality, but it is NOT that reality.
The reason it is important to remember that our ideas and descriptions are not reality and can never be is because doing so is required if we are ever to replace our ideas and descriptions with ones that serve us better.
Mass may be an abstract construct, but it's one that's proven pretty handy for a few centuries. It lets us send planes up into the air. It lets us send satellites into orbit, which lets us predict where we are at any given moment, which lets me figure out how to avoid the terrible traffic on routes 101 and 85. It lets us figure out how big an engine we need to power our vehicles, and how much to charge for shipping, and whether that laptop we want will be a pain to carry around.
Yes, it's ultimately a fiction, and it probably won't suffice to get us to alpha centauri. I am far more likely to ship a package or drive a car than go on an interstellar voyage, though.
On the contrary, I think it's extremely useful for two enormous reasons:
1) This recognition that our models are not the truth and can (should) be frequently questioned and rejected fundamentally underpins skeptical inquiry. Newton believed he was discovering fundamental Laws, the clockwork that runs the universe. Einstein proved this to be fallacious, and now we live uneasily with the knowledge that Einstein's descriptions are "false" as well.
2) Our models are not only responsible to "reality", they are also responsible to political, social, economic demands. Who, what, and how we observe are choices we make that shape the nature of our reality (that is, our view of "the real world", which is the only thing ever available to us - the real world is always inaccessible). It behooves us to be aware of this intrusion. Science is not a pristine garden undisturbed by anything other than "fact" - fact itself is polluted by its habitat, the human mind. The history of science is littered with horrors that resulted from the conviction that our current dogmas are true and that our current forms of knowledge the best.
That doesn't mean they provide nothing of use, merely that they aren't science and lack rigor. Careful not to confuse the two stances.