There is a point to such an argument because most humanities were not able to develop the stone-carved methodologies and practices that the 'hard' sciences have. Methods and practices that work all the time and produce predictable results given the same inputs. Leave aside not having the backing of natural laws and maths like some 'hard' sciences.

So far most prominent things in humanities are things like the snowball method in Sociology etc. And Psychology still has to explain why it is a science in Psy 101 books' prefaces. We are only at the start of understanding the human psyche, leaving aside its social implications. For that reason, these sciences follow the 'harder' sciences from way behind.

A lot of things are just explained by *the subconscious* in psychology, for example. Without any solid, verifiable cause-effect relation, less any actual predictable formula. There is a great discrepancy in a potential theory at some point? Just explain that discrepancy by *subconscious*.

We didn't even start to understand ourselves. We have a lot of holes in the understanding of even an individual human's psyche, which we fill with *the subconscious* and stuff, and as a result, the most of the treatments and the methods we develop to address such things end up being just repressing everything via pharmaceuticals. Problem? Blame it on the *subconscious* and fix it by feeding the person various pills.

However, none of these negate the fact that these emerging fields are sciences. Humans exist. Human psychology exists. Social relations exist. All the phenomena that result from the existence of those, also exist. Eventually, these sciences will start discovering the fundamentals of these elusive aspects of reality, and they will start to explain things that were mysteries before. For that to happen faster, these sciences must be respected and supported - not reviled and despised.