GOOD QUESTION, BUT NOT QUITE RIGHT.
Because by and large, use of the scientific method (using observation and measurement to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit, eventually, incrementally, provides more and more precise descriptions of the universe – even if it is very often, two steps forward and one step back.
Psychology was entirely pseudoscience. Social science is largely pseudoscience – and those findings that are not, are ‘unpleasant’, and avoided by the field. Much of mainstream economics is very close to pseudoscience, even if it is empirical. Most of political science is pseudoscientific nonsense. Most if not all of philosophy is pseudoscientific nonsense. However, if we look at the hard sciences, meaning physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, computer science, and mathematics, those fields (particularly physics) have been best at not claiming falsehoods. Whereas all other disciplines excel at claiming falsehoods. We are primarily constrained at this point by the fact that we cannot produce tools to test those things we wish to – they’re too expensive or require too much energy, and we don’t have the technology yet.