Brad

No - because I am stating that science and technology which can only, by
definition, deal in theories and probabilities should not claim to
occupy a
position of "stewardship". The very idea that scientists, who in our
contemporary
societies function as neo-religious figures should be allowed to control
the flow
of knowledge is quite unacceptable.

>
> Aren't you saying the same as I said, just "from the opposite
> direction?  I specifically cited persons with positions of
> *stewardship* for the welfare of others.
>

A teacher or doctor may be able to argue that they know' something to be
true - a
scientist cannot make such a bold statement because they are always
dealing with
uncertainties and probability.

>
> Whereas I said that for a scientist to lie is not worse than
> for a teacher or doctor (etc.) to do so, you say that for
> a scientist to lie is no better than for such a person
> to do so.  I think that, rhetoric aside, "the net" is that
> it is *equally* bad for any person in a position of stewardship
> to lie -- doctors, teachers, scientists, et al.
>
> Perhaps a serious issue is whether scientists take their
> responsibility as seriously, and whether society holds them
> as accountable, as teachers, doctors, and, as you appositely
> added, priests and jurists....
>
> I even wonder whether the cliche has merit that
> science constitutes the "Church" of our time, and
> scientists the clergy thereof.
>

not a cliche but a well argued position - see Deleuze and of course
Dumezil's
extraordinary work.

regards

sdv