Why do you academics in the humanities reject science and naturalism? Is there some kind of brain disease which makes people go >muh social constructs and >muh post-modernism?
Name me an academic that does.
Also, it's not about rejecting science, it's about recognizing that people who do science are simply people with their own biases and agendas like everyone else.
In my view, it's all about power. Academics in the humanities don't want to totally cede powerful ideas of the modern era like "truth" and "progress" to other disciplines, but they struggled to deliver on these things.
In practice, I feel as though Academics in the Humanities- pressured to produce, publish, and conform to expectations of constantly "new" and "better" -adapted and resorted to "growing" the humanities rather than trying to draw blood from a stone.
So we get X Studies, Y Studies, Z Studies... We get the formalised perspectivism of Theory scanning over the entire body of human knowledge and invention. And at the end of the day it's able to masquerade as a kind of truth and progress.
Yeah, it's true that every specialist tend to see the world trough his own tools, and want to reshape it with them.
Economists, sociologists, psychologists, engineers, medical doctors...
They all want to claim more things as their domain of expertise.