Well, I suppose if I take you literally then, sure. But of course your implication in that comparison is that economists are not a variety of scientist that should be listened to/taken seriously/respected etc. Especially since you used “priest” as an epithet, which would imply that you either think economics is pointless to think scientifically about, or that it is possible to think scientifically about economics but economists are doing it incorrectly, i.e in a priest-like way. Or some third thing I haven’t considered. This is what I’m curious to hear more about your reasoning for. But I understand I’m just an internet stranger and it may be a lot to write out.