Pinker is an evolutionary psychologist, having him as the advocate for the science side is kinda iffy since psych, especially EvPsych, isn't exactly considered a model of hard science by many other scientists. Your mileage may vary on the Scientific solidity of EvPsych but one can definitely say its taken some very serious criticism and not done a great job rebutting it. EvPsych is, most of the time, untestable, so it isn't scientific. Meaning it's essentially an argument by a humanities field about how they should be considered a science, not science vs humanities which is a tired old debate anyway since its apples/oranges, which is more valuable/important? Shakespeare or Quantum Mechanics? Answer? Dumb question, same as if you asked whether agriculture or free speech was more valuable, there's no purpose in comparing them that broadly. They're not 'separate' entirely either, since agriculture is improved by the spread of knowledge via free speech and its much easier to have free speech and its benefits if you've got more people, better fed people, who have more free time to talk instead of hoeing turnips all day.