It's like people have muddled the division line between subjective and objective, and if the latter can't really be grasped epistemologically, then it opens the

It's like people have muddled the division line between subjective and objective, and if the latter can't really be grasped epistemologically, then it opens the door to activist pressure in the area of knowledge. The argument often heard by the latest generation in academic social science is: there is no escape from ideology / all is influenced by power dynamics / objectivity cannot exist, it's a relic of an old-school set of ideas that, by the way, oppressed people. Even (especially) hard science can't be objective, because it will always 'serve a purpose', in a power dynamic or social context. Maybe less political is just the fact that social science can't be hard science, because it isn't existentially against making claims that can be neither proven nor disproven. That's not its fault, since a lot of fields in social science have value to society (psychology, economics, sociology, etc.). But it's overstepping its bounds, I think is your point. What I don't like is how we're trying to establish some sort of priesthood, where people with (certain) degrees feel righteous in areas that probably they're being a little over-confident. I've had many conversations with people from this background where, they take what I've said and do not address the claim or rebuttal as a logician would, but instead, "Oh, you're wrong because you're misinformed, you didn't read this paper, you are such-and-such and such groups don't understand this fact I am stating, [or some other claim that isn't a rebuttal]." Without really tackling my point or defending their position. If only they could be that self-aware to state it like that...