French theologian and philosopher Jacques Ellul wrote something that is quite applicable to many self-appointed purveyors (and perverters) of science.
In his 1963 AD The Technological Society, he noted:
Does not the scientist dominate our techniques? Is he not an intellectual inclined and fit to put basic questions? Unfortunately, we are obliged to re-examine our hopes here when we look at things as they are. We see quickly enough that the scientist is as specialized as the technician, as incapable of general ideas, and as much out of commission as the philosopher. Think of the scientists who, on one tack or another, have addressed themselves to the technical phenomenon: Einstein, Oppenheimer, Carrel.
It is only too clear that the ideas these gentlemen have advanced in the sphere of the philosophic or the spiritual are vague, superficial and contradictory. They really ought to stick to warnings and proclamations, for as soon as they assay anything else, the other scientists and the technicians rightly refuse to take them seriously, and they even run the risk of losing their reputations as scientists.
He was speaking to his context of “technical phenomenon,” referenced Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Alexis Carrel and warns against them speaking, as I will put it, outside of their field and the warning is also for us to not accept their pontifications regarding issue outside of their field. This is because while “these gentlemen have advanced in the sphere” of their special training, “They really ought to stick to” that which they know and not expand into that which they do not but presume to know or to otherwise be able to tackle simply due to their erudition.
If and when they speak on subjects about which they are not truly prepared to speak they “run the risk of losing their reputations as scientists” since people will begin to wonder whether they really are erudite in those areas in which they are supposed to be such.
Now, in our day there is no shortage of scientists who, on one tack or another, have addressed themselves to any number of issues about which they know nothing more than the average person: Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye and, did I mention Richard Dawkins?
Not surprisingly, these few examples are all Atheists and all step well outside of their fields in order to speak on anything that strikes their fancy Richard Dawkins is a biologist who regularly addresses issues of theology and ethics. Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist who has been known to addresses issues of theology and philosophy. Sam Harris is a neuro-scientist who regularly addresses issues of theology and ethics. Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist who regularly addresses issues of theology and ethics. Bill Nye is well, he once pretended to be a scientist on a children’s TV show and who regularly addresses issues of theology and science.
Those who truly are skeptical, and not pseudo-skeptics who are in reality merely cynics, have indeed begun losing faith, as it were, in these personages even when they do speak within their own field. They risk of losing their reputations as scientists because it is so evident that the manner in which they tend to deal with issues in general is to manipulate evidence, interpret evidence via worldview philosophies, have a goal of protecting preferred theories, etc., etc., etc.
Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye and, did I mention Richard Dawkins would do well to heed Jacques Ellul for their own sake. Of course, they will not because they also think that they far too knowledgeable in general to refuse to speak on any topic.