Thanks for your support, vc. Great suggestions by Al and Bill, also.
Why do people take such great care in distinguishing 'science' from 'humanities'? Have you noticed (of course you have!) how people who practice so-called 'hard' science believe that their works (and, of course, their oh-so-true beliefs) are truly superior to those of people who practice social science and arts? We all operate according a common set of human functionalities; some perform better than others, and some are more judgmental than others. We express ourselves differently due to variations in learning histories, but we operate in the same ways. That's why psychological science is so useful to those who understand cognition and motivation.
I don't accuse people of misdeeds or immorality; I do want people to examine their discourses and their actions for their own benefit and for the benefit of those around them. So without being personal, I note that arrogance, hypocrisy and bigotry are familiar to everyone who practices cognitive psychology, because we understand how those processes operate. They're less well understood by people who haven't explored the mysteries of cognitive functionality. Everyone has one's own interests.
We can't help that. We can deal with our historical limitations in various ways, but if we think in terms of truth then we can never reconcile intrapersonal conflicts without becoming wrong about something, and we can't deal with interpersonal conflicts with any other people who also can't change
their minds about stuff.
Metacognition guides critical coherency. If one isn't committed to reforming one's presumptions according to evidence and reason then the possibilities for learning are more limited than if one applies critical theory and critical analysis. (Is that correct, do ya think?)