Not immune. The author is saying the scientific community doesn't have outsized problems vs other professions or compared with religion (i.e. at most as bad as).
> I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destructive, narcissistic behavior (at least no more than in other professions)
"at least no more than in other professions" is the key.
> Maybe Scientism is simply better at ego-maintenance than its religious analogs
> Of course, Scientism still has some of the common failure modes of religion. There is plenty of hatred for the outgroup (looking at you, r/skeptic). And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk.
> But all that aside, I’m beginning to think of Scientism less as a perversion of science, and more as an evolutionary leap in religious culture
So the basic thrust is because scientism has the go modulating aspect of religion but not as much of the ego maximizing, scientism is better than releigion.
That being said, I think the author doesn't really dive into all the ego maximization that does happen (awards, success in industry, credentialism, chasing monetary rewards, etc). However, all of that happens in a religious context too (in Catholicism for example, Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope, etc). "And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk." comes up even worse in a religious context ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them", "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."). Funny how human-generated philosophies always privilege our own space in the universe. It's almost as if game theory would accurately predict such an outcome.
> I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destructive, narcissistic behavior (at least no more than in other professions)
"at least no more than in other professions" is the key.
> Maybe Scientism is simply better at ego-maintenance than its religious analogs
> Of course, Scientism still has some of the common failure modes of religion. There is plenty of hatred for the outgroup (looking at you, r/skeptic). And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk.
> But all that aside, I’m beginning to think of Scientism less as a perversion of science, and more as an evolutionary leap in religious culture
So the basic thrust is because scientism has the go modulating aspect of religion but not as much of the ego maximizing, scientism is better than releigion.
That being said, I think the author doesn't really dive into all the ego maximization that does happen (awards, success in industry, credentialism, chasing monetary rewards, etc). However, all of that happens in a religious context too (in Catholicism for example, Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope, etc). "And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk." comes up even worse in a religious context ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them", "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."). Funny how human-generated philosophies always privilege our own space in the universe. It's almost as if game theory would accurately predict such an outcome.