I'm not really sure I understand your point - isn't it self-evident that there is new data available to different fields at different rates at different times? And that when there are fewer available data points, each newly available data point has more potential to totally shake up a field? We can quibble over what a "trickle" means, but to use an example from my own graduate research (Chinese Literature), pretty much every piece of scholarly research written a hundred years ago is now considered wrong, totally outdated, or requiring huge caveats. I personally wouldn't call that a trickle.
When you don't have a lot of data, you have to torture what you have more and more. That makes the discipline not "science" but "sciencey." Just like economics is not science but sciencey.
We might as well call any theoretical discipline like math or computer science “not science” then, but somehow I doubt that’ll persuade you since you appear to have a priori decided on the relative validity of a bunch of disciplines anyways.
