From, astralcodexten On Priesthoods:
Many priesthoods, like doctors, still have a good reputation. Even people who disagree with the medical establishment maintain a fetish for the priesthood, and will parade the tiny number of renegade MDs on their side as the strongest evidence that they’re right.
In no order, math, physics or philosophy are closer to being priesthoods compared to medicine or healthcare. The health and wellness industry has a huge sprawling network of uncredentialed experts or pundits, such as podcasters and social media influencers, pushing dubious theories or alternative medicines. Anyone can set up a social media account and profess unearned expertise at some medical or health field (typically nutrition or kinesiology, not so much oncology) without any semblance of ‘official’ credentials.
Also, many doctors have private practices and advertise, much like a business, such as for elective procedures like cosmetic surgery or dental implants. But how many private physicists, philosophers, or mathematicians are there? Those exist almost entirely within the domain or confines the academy. Peer review is everything when it comes to physics or math. With health and wellness, the peers are the public, such as reviews or testimonials. Law and healthcare offer diverse offramps from academia, such as working in hospitals, private practices, or law firms. In contrast, academia typically culminates in tenure, a position decided by a committee in a process often likened to a secretive cabal or the selection of a new pope.
Nutrition and medicine, although complicated in terms of the biology of the human body and compounds, is much more accessible to laypeople–or at least laypeople are inclined to pontificate about it–compared to the imperviousness or inscrutability of something like philosophy. Many more people have opinions on social media about carbs vs fats or folklore ‘cold remedies’, compared to opinions on Kant vs. Hume. Part of this has to with health being more practical, whereas philosophy does not lend itself to any obvious application but intellectual gratification (except perhaps self-help stoicism, which has become popular over the past 15 years).
Psychology, that once gave rise to minds as vaunted as Freud and Jung, has been captured by online services or even AI, in which humans are not involved at all, like chat bots. The replication crisis has shown that decades of cited social science research possibly stands on nothing more than a foundation of sand. Yet top math journals are still as reputable as ever, resisting the reputational loss and saturation seen in the social sciences. Math results are considered finalized when proven [0], whereas health trends or social science trends can change when public perception changes, the funding dries up , or said theory or school of thought falls of out fashion (what about that amyloid plaque hypothesis everyone was talking about a decade ago?)
Yes, there are science popularizers who have large audiences, e.g. Sabine Hossenfelder, but they are outnumbered by health and wellness gurus, and also they speak from an position of implied intellectual authority with much less audience participation; the communication process is very much top-down. Health and wellness, by contrast, is much more participatory, with people in the comments lending their anecdotal experience trying different diets or a certain exercise routine, which you don’t see in physics or math videos.
It’s little surprise a charismatic person was chosen for the Secretary of Health, who has a large social media presence, that of course being RFK Jr., consentient with this participatory aspect of health, compared to the relative secretary of the Secretary of Energy , Chris Wright, whom I hadn’t even heard of until I wrote this post.
[0] On occasion, math results can be wrong even after initially being accepted by the community and passing peer review, like a famous incorrect proof in 1879 by Alfred Kempe of the 4-color-theorem, that was shown to be incorrect in 1891.