# priesthood of science



## Scott (May 9, 2006)

Was listening to a set of secular lectures on Science in the 20th Century. Professor Goldman of Lehigh University makes the interesting point that modern science has the characteristics of an "esoteric cult" (his words) and that scientists form a sort of "priesthood" in our society. He said that the main rite of initiation is the learning of mathematics. Anyone can eneter the priesthood provided he can master high level mathematics. Dr. Goldman lamented how this development has made science undemocratic and the domain of a privileged elite. Evbidently Francis Bacon was skeptical of making math the language of science. Prior to the 20th century there was not such an emphasis on math.

He likened the situation to Plato's academcy. Legend has it that over his door was a sign that said "He who has not mastered mathematics may not enter" or something like that. ANyway, the idea is that the knowledge was for a privileged few who had the ability to master it. 

Thoughts?

Scott


----------



## SmokingFlax (May 10, 2006)

I have often viewed the unquestioning acceptance of the "scientific" class and it's dogmas as a sort of priesthood for the secular ape. 
Noone can deny the brilliance of so much of our technological age but I've never understood how so many folks just can't seem to grasp the concept that an educated person is still subject to the same petty biases, peer pressures and downright dishonesty and will to power as anyone else.


----------



## Scott (May 10, 2006)

It is interesting to see a secular philosopher / historian describing science as an esoteric cult and scientists as a priesthood. That may be common, I am not sure. I have heard Christian critiques use language like that.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 10, 2006)

Gertrude Kelly (1862 - 1934), feminist and anarchist, once said:



> But perhaps you will say that not the populace, but the select few, are to decide what scientific investigations are to be rewarded. Which select few, and how are they to be selected? Of all the minorities which separate themselves from the current of public opinion, who is to decide which minority has the truth? And, allowing that it is possible to determine which minority has the truth on a special occasion, have you any means by which to prove that this minority will be in favor of the next new truth? Is there not danger that, having accomplished its ends, it in turn will become conservative, and wish to prevent further advance? A priesthood of science would differ in no manner from any other priesthood the world has yet seen, and the evil effect which such a priesthood would have upon science no one has more clearly seen or more clearly demonstrated than Huxley in his "Scientific Aspects of Positivism." Again, admitting that great men endowed with supreme power could remain impartial, we still have no evidence on record to prove that great men are endowed with more than the ordinary share of common sense, which is so necessary in conducting the ordinary affairs of life.


----------



## SRoper (May 10, 2006)

Is this guy a postmodernist? They use similar language about science.


----------



## Scott (May 10, 2006)

> Is this guy a postmodernist? They use similar language about science.


I am not sure. There are some hints in that direction, but his views are unclear.


----------

