Plato counterposed reason to emotion. I think he said, emotions corrupt reason. That's why he wanted to send poets to exile. He opposed bards who used to tell stories by going from place to another. Ancient Skeptics (both Pyrrhonian and Academic) and Ancient Cynics supported bards; btw, these Skeptics were not like modern (epistemic) skeptics. Epistemic skepticism is all about infinite regress, whereas Ancient skeptics were saying something different: practices don't need foundation in reason.

I sometimes wonder if humanity will veer off into scientific priesthood that will control humanity.

That eventually forget why they are worshipping a language they no longer understand.

That seems unlikely in several ways - first off the controling humanity part as a whole has failed whenever it has been tried regardless of means.

Second the "scientific priesthood" tropes get it so backwards. A priesthood in the sense depends upon trust and secrets jealously guarded within. Instead they are anti-priests in that they try to promote and want to see understanding spread and progress to more advanced and nuanced areas.

Not to mention I have seen it most invocations as what seems a lot like psychological projection. Dogmatics encounter something science contradicts, no matter how peripheral to their dogma's core and encounter cognitive dissonance. Rather than admit their assumptions may need to shift they then accuse scientests of being the priesthood and trying to take control. There were a number of willful ignorants claiming that math and text based programming were just gatekeeping for a "computer priesthood" back roughly around the dot com bubble when they were feeling envious despite every notion being patently ridiculous - the programming languages made it more accessible and the math is domain fundamental.

The closest apparent thing to a "science priesthood" would be authoritarians wearing science's skin as a clothing but well that is frankly isn't unique as that is what authoritarians have always to every ideology. See every dictator claiming to be a god-king, theocract, first citizen, "president for life", or similiar mask.

We have plenty of scientism already, but scientists are only listened to when it's convenient. See: vaccines, nuclear energy, starlink, and climate change. Besides, the interesting questions that drive politics aren't scientific ones.

Science rarely speaks authoritatively on moral questions.

> Science rarely speaks authoritatively on moral questions.

At least they aren't allowed to. Even if you don't allow to derive 'ought' from 'is', facts and reasoning can transform some simple 'oughts' into interesting consequences.

Ie 'ought' plus 'is' can derive you another 'ought'.

You still have to pick your initial 'oughts', of course.

I agree with your first paragraph!

That's what tends to happen with pandemics. Established religion loses authority, and scientists who can heal people gain authority.

Then scientist take their newfound authority and invent world destroying super weapons and tell humanity they are insignificant, which tends to swing authority somewhere else.