I know this is bait, but I will deconstruct anyway because people will actually believe you.
>Logic -> mathematics
This is a philosophical position about mathematics called logicism, and it is generally taken to have been defeated by Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.
>Epistemology -> linguistics, neuroscience, physics
Linguistics is the study of the structur(ual) and evolution of human languages, neuroscience is the study of the brain, physics is the study of matter and energy. What, if anything, do these three lines of inquiry tell us about knowledge as such? Generally, these fields assume an epistemology and proceed from there. The scientific method is an epistemological method. It is not epistemology itself
Politics -> economics, psychology
Economics and psychology are certainly important in understanding politics, but the field of politics itself encompasses a broader range of political phenomenon, including its history, its theory, and sociology. But you don't specify what you mean by "politics". What of comparing normative political ideals? How can that practice be reduced in your mind?
>Ontology -> theoretical and nuclear physics, cosmology, biology
Certainly the most egregious of your claims and betrays a fundamental failure to understand science, how its practicitioners view their practice, and its relationship to ontology. No theoretical physicist is concerned with the problem of universals, modality, temporal ontology, or even the physical interpretation of their own models. See anything from Einstein's Hole Argument to his debates with Bohr over the EPR Paradox if you want a better grasp on how two of the three pillars of contemporary science divorced themselves from their foundations. Philosophy of physics exists, and it exists for good reason