This is a great example of precisely what I find problematic about applying logic in a simplified way. In itself the argument seems valid. But it relies on ass

This is a great example of precisely what I find problematic about applying logic in a simplified way. In itself the argument seems valid. But it relies on assumptions that are (at best) highly debatable: First, the author of the post assumes that the definition of the humanities he presents is universally true (carried by everyone). It is not: I never heard of it before, and I don't agree with it. To me it's just part of a taxonomy of how departments in universities are partitioned. Second, even under the assumption that this definition was universally shared, the argument presupposes that this definition would then also fully determine the actual praxis. Which I highly doubt. Third, the point about lying is just a bunch of fear mongering BS. Etc etc.