For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for, you seem awfully confident of your opinion.
I'm sorry, what?
I did ask that as a rhetorical flourish in a different thread (as a response to you, in fact), but c'mon. You specifically said
> It's not science, or science-adjacent, or anything to do with science. It doesn't pretend to be. That's not what it's for.
I note that you didn't answer my other question: how do you justify its use if it's not 'science'.
EDIT: Btw, my allusion was to a comment by Stephen Fry in a debate. (Specifics are no doubt going to lead to more contention, so I'll omit them.)
Your responsibility as a human is to discover value in things you encounter. Failing to find it is just failing, and says more about you than about things.