'Hard' sciences often seem to lack a body (/bodies). In many of their current (and especially past) forms, they require intensely disembodied modes of thinking, logic and action/interpretation. In terms of contributing wholesomely to life on the earth, this is their main shortcoming. Because everything on this earth, animate or inanimate, lively or not, has a body (/bodies) and exists in embodied ways. And requiring (forcing) an absence of embodiment as a metric of legitimacy and 'objectivity' runs counter to the realities of existence in ways that foster disconnection, and with it the abilities to interpret the 'facts' the 'hard' sciences produce without having to consider the consequences for the multitude of bodies that constitute those 'facts'. In other words, when your logic is disembodied, you're less likely to (be able to) care about the effects that logic has on the real, often fragile and vulnerable bodies it comes from and is being applied to.