Yes, it's extremely destructive.

@DMcCreery1956

Actually, to be more accurate, the humanities are a study of humanity, the human race and cultures. It is a passive and does not directly influence the engineering of society. It is the "social sciences that are destructive. Subjects like, sociology, psychiatry, not so much psychology, but the first two are mostly connected to politics and are busy engineering individual behavior and society.

@FrankZeleniuk "...the broad topic of the humanities and social sciences, which is a discipline that involves the study of human society and social relationships. Within this discipline, however, the humanities and the social sciences are distinct in their methodology and focus (although there is some overlap). The humanities typically are considered more critical and analytical, dealing with the philosophical question of what makes us human. The social sciences, on the other hand, use a more scientific approach, essentially applying similar methodology as the natural sciences to the study of humans in society." "...Branches of the humanities include law, languages, philosophy, religion and mythology, international relations, gender and women’s studies, multicultural and regional studies, popular culture, and art and music, while branches of the social sciences include sociology, anthropology, archeology, geography, political science (including politics and government), psychology, communication studies, criminal justice, demographics, library and information science, and economics." Gale.com

@DMcCreery1956 I like that there is a clear distinction between the social "sciences" that are active in engineering society and the humanities which are mostly records and observations; a history of humanity but is essentially passive.

The Humanities are more art than science. In my view, the social sciences claim to be sciences for the purpose of donning a cloak of authority. Science must contain empirical fact and some so-called sciences have very little. For instance, economics claims to be a science yet there are few things about it that can be called empirical or even axiomatic. As a result of labeling it a science the whole subject has shifted over to mathematics making it more a study in econometrics than economics. Politics is also not a science but more an art. Essentially, they involve individual behaviors which are never absolute or empirical fact. They wind up with bell curves and guessing. It's why behavioral modification will never succeed and a centrally engineered society will fail - the data they use is not empirical but someone's idea of how things should be or how people should behave or act, what they will like or not like, etc.

The quote from Gale.com you provide is a good example of how we have accepted sloppy definitions. The social sciences may "use a more scientific approach, applying similar methodology as the natural sciences" but they are not sciences because they do not use or establish empirical fact in their application. They lie outside the realm of science and more in the realm of art.

@FrankZeleniuk Are you for or agin shaming the field of evolutiontionary biology for microaggressions perceived by the cult of woke?

@DMcCreery1956 LOL. I think you know me well enough to know where I stand on the issue of "woke". Progressives are actually regressive.

@FrankZeleniuk Yes, I do. Happy New Year, Frank.

@DMcCreery1956 Have a good one!