Why are individuals in the hard sciences so keen on seeking public intellectual status by maiming the fields of...

why are individuals in the hard sciences so keen on seeking public intellectual status by maiming the fields of philosophy, politics, history, and archaeology, among others? for some reason, it seems that this trend is escalating.

some hypotheses:
>popular media now much more pop. science focused in America than it is on the old "men of letters" tropes of past intellectual epochs (reaction to postmodern anxiety and desire of hoi polloi to return to the Enlightenment?)
>the very process of research and application of research in the hard sciences, once basic skills are attained, can sometimes be fairly rote, especially in modern functionalist contexts where people's research is being put towards incremental development of products and things; thus, those with the highest IQs in these fields feel unchallenged or undermotivated and so seek out other complex subjects. the inflated egos they have from having advanced degrees in "more difficult" subjects make them feel that they have something new to offer these fields when they don't see their tired epistemologies reflected in modern discourse in those subjects (could also play into scientists' anxieties themselves about postmodernism and almost reflexive need to silence debates about epistemology to maintain their advanced intellectual status in Western Europe and America vis a vis continental intellectual traditions)
>individuals in the hard sciences, cut off from popular discourse and normal people (academia insulates, and interaction with non-specialists is unnecessary when you work in such an abstracted field as evo psych or astrophys), think that there is actually a culture war going on with evangelicals that threatens their funding
>to use their own stupid determinist philosophy, maybe there is something inherent about the hard sciences that draws candidates who are also arrogant, ignorant prigs who can't shut their mouths about things they don't understand

>stupid determinist philosophy
you almost had me there

im referring to folks like harris and pinker who mechanistically apply evo theory to all human behavior. do you have a counter argument?

you aren't being specific enough for anyone to present a counter argument

>do you have a counter argument?

Do you have one at all? Because all I read was

>boohoo why are they more convincing than the shit I believe

You telling me experts in one field act like experts in another? Why I never.

This isn't something exclusive to professionals within the natural sciences, but it's much easier to spot there.

Because they're autistic and can't appreciate the beauty of history and the humanities. Last STEM president to take office was Jimmy Carter.

Scientism. People who aren't philosophers don't understand what philosophy actually is and what it's for. Science and philosophy aren't competing and they aren't trying to answer the same questions, but most people believe this to be the case. It's natural that in our post-industrial environment the masses would default to scientists as the people with answers to everything; they facilitate the creation of all of our cool gadgets and toys after all. Science became fetishized after WW2 in mainstream thought and culture. The discovery of relativity and quantum mechanics left this sense that science was uncovering the magical and mysterious underworld of reality itself which directly implied in a lot of people's minds that science was accomplishing philosophical goals (in other words, there was this implied belief that because quantum mechanics are so strange, invisible, counterintuitive, and revolutionary, they must be something like meta-physics). I think this essentially explains why scientists born in this later time themselves have this arrogance about other fields.

I'm 25 and planning on doing ancient history at uni.

Any tips?

Because, largely due to the technological advancements and conveniences that long work in the hard sciences has helped to improve the immediate, material lives of people for whom immediate material comfort is really the only thing that matters, anyone who can lay hold to being a scientist is in some sense considered a priest in our society. Especially if you're a materially successful scientist with a popular-level book out and appearances on TV, which is where all serious intellectual activity occurs.

We've always given more credence to TV and to easy, quick answers resulting in immediate comfort. It's satisfying to hear the likes of Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, the ex-Christopher Hitchens, et al. tell us that we need not worry about the questions of philosophy or complex questions concerning ethics and history. It's all so simple, just listen to these buzzwords and discount everyone who doesn't sound exactly like us. It's really just religion for people who have convinced themselves that they're too clever for metaphysics.

It's also because scientists accomplish things and make life better, but philosophers don't actually do anything but play word games.
People notice that.

ass

>Playing word games
> literally writing in a created language

Lulz

Science, when applied correctly is essentially nihilistic. It tells us how the world functions, but it makes no moral distinction. The latter is what we have philosophy for.

>it's another &humanities inferiority complex thread

Sam harris literally isn't a scientist though.

Reminder Sam Harris's mother was Jewish and he is a crypto Jew that has never said anything bad about Jews, while making a career out of insulting muslisms and christians

A much more interesting topic is when engineers think they understand things like economics and political government and start memeing things like libatariam, becuase they think human society's will magically run best if set like the self correcting machines they make.

to be honest economics and political science are not really hard science.
It isn't possible to make accurate prediction anways, so you don't need a degree to make up some theories

He never insults anyone, he has criticised Islam and Christianity and he has indeed criticised, your religious ideologies aren't above any scrutiny where any criticism is "an insult". You're also talking rubbish, he has criticised Judaism as well.

>He never insults anyone
Have you read the end of faith? It's a emotional rage fest at Muslims

You clearly haven't read it.

Harris did his undergrad in philosophy, and Pinker recently linked to an article on twitter that argues against pop scientists who don't understand or respect philosophy. I don't think these guys are a problem.

>listening to engineers

You some kind of faggot or something?
t. Veeky Forums