Why do you academics in the humanities reject science and naturalism?

Yes, far left politics.

Wishful thinking, pure and simple.

LIBTARDS BTFO

All knowledge is based on which we cannot prove.

>>567732
From what I saw it was only ever the students rejecting science.

>>567732
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.

>>567732
I'm a >muh social constructs kind of guy, but I also accept biology.
There's no contradiction between the two.
The real issue lies with the >muh human nature crowd.

>>567732
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.

>>568028
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.

>>567732
I don't the rest are just faggots

t. archaeologist

LEFTIES HAVE NO WORDS
IT'S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD