There's a certain kind of techbro who thinks it's a knock-down argument to say "Well, you haven't built anything". As if the only people whose expertise counts are those close to the machine. I'm reminded (again) of
@timnitGebru 's wise comments on "the hierarchy of knowledge". >>

I've been pondering some recently about where that hierarchy comes from. It's surely reinforced by the way that $$ (both commercial and, sadly, federal research funds) tends to flow --- and people mistaking VCs, for example, as wise decision makers.

But I also think that some of it has roots in the way different subjects are taught. Math & CS are both (frequently) taught in very gate-keepy ways (think weeder classes) and also students are evaluated with very cut & dried exams.

>>

So you end up with people thinking they are "good at" or "bad at" these things, and furthermore situations where those who are "good at" them are the winners of (sometimes literal) contests.

Meanwhile, if you look to the humanities and humanistic social sciences, the teaching is (on average, say) less gate-keepy (though not perfect!) and the evaluation requires spending time together in the details of open-ended explorations (essays, qualitative studies).

>>

So there's much less of a sense of "Here's this body of knowledge, and only the smart ones can master it, and we can see who they are." (Though boy howdy does a certain kind of formal syntax lean into that.)

So when the tech bros, likely the "winners" over in math & CS, hit something from the humanities/humanistic social sciences that they don't understand, they don't see expertise. They either see nothing or they see "nonsense" --- and miss their own ignorance.

>>

The above is all idle speculation, but I'd would love to see if there is actual work (sociology of science? something in education?) that looks into the educational construction of the hierarchy of knowledge.