Bad social science?

 In Gelman's formulation, there seems to be the idea that "good social science" is the product of academic research, whereas "bad social science reasoning" would be the ways in which human beings reason about society in other contexts.  It could be bad social science within an academic context, or folk beliefs about society, culture, economics, psychology found in non-academic settings. 

In any case, the idea that the goal of social science is to correct delusions about ourselves is an attractive one. We can correct error... whether we get to the truth is another matter. The formulation is strikingly negative. I'm not sure that academic beliefs are superior to folk wisdom. Don't they just boil down to another kind of folk wisdom? We all know academics who post some stupid meme on facebook in an uncritical way if it bolsters their political convictions. 

As for humanities research... the only justification that's made sense to me is that products of the human imagination, like films, symphonies, epic poems, or paintings are rewarding to study in their own right.  It seems like a weaker justification than the utilitarian ones given for hard science and social science, but it is actually stronger.

For that matter, the idea that science is only valuable because of its utilitarian uses is also questionable. The universe is awe-inspiring and that ought to be reason enough to study it.