It is difficult to answer this query unless we are able to outline “pseudo-science” and “pseudo-humanities”. Taking “humanities” to be “philosophy”, we could replace “pseudo-humanities” by “pseudo-philosophy” in the preceding statement.

You could be talking about the relationship between two rogues, called pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy.

“True science” and “true philosophy” ain’t there in our vicinity since long. Had they been here, we would be witnessing them embracing each other.

They would be two integral components of the same welfare system. There would be a gradient of importance between the two, of course.

Because, philosophy would be “invoked” to collect information maximally and derive a theory optimally out of the collection. Then science would be “employed” to experiment over the predictions of the theory and chisel out the theory for implementation.

There would be a “master-professional relationship” between the two.

However, sovereignty doesn’t sustain without authority. Philosophy failed to organize the full show by developing enough intelligence for it. It preferred to be just complacent over its obsession of chatting indefinitely and aimlessly.

So, the professional with the mercenary incentive got the opportunity to be the avaricious funds-happy boss.

Thus, came into this world two anti-socials viz. the pseudo-philosophy and the pseudo-science.