Interesting read in the citation.

Yes I concede that many physics papers will compile the results of previous groups to get more realistic numbers as a combination of their work and experiments. Although it isn't called a meta analysis in hard science fields, it is basically the same thing. Forgive me for not thinking about that very thoroughly, it's 6 AM for me and I've been awake for a while :)

From my experience with the soft sciences (which is admittedly not much beyond an undergraduate level, unlike hard sciences), their mathematical backing is less rigorous than you would find in, say physics. You won't really find any mathematical proofs in a biology paper. All fields APPLY math to model and statistics to approximate errors and variations, but only the harder sciences USE mathematical logic and proof structure in order to predict a relationship between unstudied things from mathematical/geometrical underpinnings of the universe. The softer fields use the math to explain, but only the harder fields can use it to predict and to build off of the previous knowledge base.

If you have any counterexamples to the things in my last paragraph I would love to see them, for I know of none.