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