It's important to be clear about terms. Hypotheses are just guesses. Through experimentation and observation, they can become theories, which are just well-tested hypotheses. Theories can explain why something happens. It's not accurate to state that a "theory is true;" it's accurate to say that it is "accurate." In addition, through countless experiments and observations, facts, or that which is true, can be determined. Something that summarizes the facts can be described as a law. It is accurate to state that a law is true.
It's critical to understand that theories are not laws, that theories are not facts. Theories and Laws are apples and oranges. Theories explain why something happens, Laws dictate what will happen. Neither ever transforms into the other.
Inductive reasoning was the key to the Scientific Revolution. Hypotheses could be stated. By observation, and experimentation, theories could be produced and facts can be determined; eventually a body of related facts could be comprehended as a Law, or a summary of many facts. The classic case of this process was Galileo's obeservations and hypotheses regarding motion, that a generation later, were codifed by Newton into his mathematical formulas describing the Laws of Motion and Gravity.
Contrasted with inductive reasoning is deductive reasoning, where axioms (truths) are stated, and from which other truths are derived. Before the Scientific Revolution, in the Western world, this process held sway for two millennia, from the time Aristotle stated "facts" from which other facts were derived. Authorities may dictate facts, but without the rigor of observation and experimentation, they may in reality be only hypotheses, or opinions from someone in authority.
The issue between the "hard" and "soft" sciences is that "natural" sciences are inductive and the "human" sciences are deductive. One can be convinced by the natural sciences because of the rigor they present; one is not so convinced by the human sciences because the rigor is absent. Axioms from authorities are not equal to Laws composed of facts.