I'd tend to agree with the OP. and Tedro, actually. I really have a disdain for most of the "social sciences" I've seen (except History, which is different, and respectable). Case in point--a sociology class I took (because, oddly enough, I thought the subject could be interesting!) took 20 minutes to explain mean, median, and mode. W.T.F. I stopped going entirely after that unless it was a test day, and I managed to ace everything. Not to mention the textbooks were biased as all hell, weak on rigorous science, and didn't understand experimental set-up and control at all.
Now before you all get upset at me, I've met a number of very intelligent people in social science majors. We get along well, and have interesting discussions. One of my very best friends majored in psychology. He's working on his masters. He's extremely intelligent, and very fun to discuss things with. Another friend of my roommates is getting his phd in psych. They both say the same thing--"it's stupid." They are both getting disillusioned.
I would argue that sociology and other "sciences" have NO understanding of scientific rigor. Mostly sociology. I'm prepared to accept anthropology sometimes (because of its ties to natural history), and psych, sometimes (as studying the human mind necessarily leads to all kinds of control problems).
Here's the rub--I think the study of society, cultural history, and the mind (of both criminals and regular people) are necessary things to further our understanding of ourselves and the world around us, and are very interesting to me. I enjoy reading books on society and different cultures, and especially the mind. The problem is that in 100% of the interactions I've ever had with any of these fields in any academic setting whatsoever, they suck ass. They're biased, use uncontrolled and crappy experimental design, advocate simplistic (not simple) explanations of their subjects, and are generally below what I would consider the minimum threshold for scientific rigor in anything you'd wish to publish in a respectable journal. Not to mention while I've had a number of interactions with very intelligent people in these fields, the vast (vast) majority are followers and idiots.
This has led me to believe that much like despotism or monarchy, the soft sciences are only worthwhile if there are subtle, honest, and intelligent people running the show (eg-Plato's philosopher-king ideal). If there is a majority made up of idiots, the field sucks balls. Sadly, the majority of people are idiots. Therefore, while you can find good individual books or sources, and good people to talk to, the vast majority is useless tripe. These people exist in an imaginary world where their simplistic single-factor ideals/theories make total sense and will change the world. I live in the real world where things don't work like that. This is exactly why the "ivory tower" euphemism is used. Soft science Academia is run (mostly) by idiots.
EDIT--Ok, so if you couldn't tell by my post, I just had another really aggravating experience with a few people who consider themselves sociologists that brought this to the forefront of my mind. Bottom line is this---I think the studies/fields are necessary, interesting, and useful, but I'm supremely disappointed in most of the people I've met who study these things. They should have just been art majors and gotten something totally useless instead of screwing up potentially very useful and profound fields of study by entering them. This is why I'm a cynical biochemist.