Science As Religion?

SCIENCE AS RELIGION? SCIENCE COMMUNICATION AND ELECTIVE MODERNISM WILL JOHN MASON-WILKES School of Social Sciences Cardiff University Doctor of Philosophy January 2018 Declaration This work has not been submitted in substance for any other degree or award at this or any other university or place of learning, nor is being submitted concurrently in candidature for any degree or other award. Signed: (candidate) Date: 05/03/2018 STATEMENT 1 This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD Signed: (candidate) Date: 05/03/2018 STATEMENT 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. The views expressed are my own. Signed: (candidate) Date: 05/03/2018 STATEMENT 3 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed: (candidate) Date: 05/03/2018 i Acknowledgements This thesis, though the work of the author, quite simply could not have been completed without the intellectual and emotional support of a range of people, to whom I offer my most heartfelt thanks. My PhD supervisors, Professors Harry Collins and Robert Evans, have made an invaluable contribution to this project. They have provided the intellectual atmosphere in which my ideas and skills as a researcher have been honed. Their criticism of my work has always been insightful and well-intentioned, and though occasionally blunt, has had a transformative effect on the clarity of my ideas and my communication of them. The positive impact of their input cannot be overstated. Beyond the immediate supervisory relationship, the ideas presented in the following thesis have been developed through interaction with a range of other scholars at Cardiff. The KES research group has provided me with one such intellectual space to present and develop my ideas. The contribution of all of KES members has proved vital in aiding the development of my thinking, and myself as a researcher. Particular mention must also be reserved for my progress reviewer Dr. Robin Smith, whose particular epistemological and methodological perspective has reminded me of the breadth of the discipline, and ensured that I carefully considered where I locate myself within it. I must also thank the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) whose generous funding allowed me to pursue this project. Thanks must also be offered to all of my participants, who made space in their busy schedules to answer my questions and provide me with insight into the world of science television production. Without their cooperation, my research would be fundamentally lacking. As well as these more formal relationships, this work has been made possible, and undoubtedly improved, by my interactions with the researchers who I have had the good fortune to share office space with at 1-3 Museum Place. The input of The People’s Pod (Jack Greig-Midlane, Grace Krause and Kyle Henry), Melissa Mendez, Ruth Doubleday, Rajeev Gundur, Chris Goldsworthy and The Dungeoneers (Jack and Mendez again, along with Eleanor Johnson) stands out as being of particular significance to the development, revision and eventual solidification of the ideas presented in my thesis, but the vibrant and welcoming atmosphere of ‘The Office’ (both upstairs and in ‘The Dungeon’) has meant that the task of writing my thesis, though often difficult, has never felt insurmountable. Writing a thesis is often described as a lonely pursuit. Thanks to the contribution of those listed above, and the many others who I have worked alongside at Cardiff, it has never felt that way to me. Many of these colleagues are now firm friends, and alongside the intellectual contribution, have provided emotional and moral support (quite often in liquid form at the Pen & Wig on a Friday evening…). This kind of emotional, moral and occasionally financial support has also been provided by my family; Patsy, Pete, Jess and Lulu and my partner; Charley. Without their constant and unwavering love and support, the previous three and a half years would have been immeasurably harder, and the production of this thesis that much more uncertain. To all those listed above, and the others who I have failed to recall but who have had some impact on this project, thank you. Any errors that remain in the work are attributable only to me. ii Abstract My central concern in this thesis is how science should be understood by the public. I argue that science should be understood, and valued for, the formative aspirations of the scientific community. The formative aspirations of the scientific community are the values members try to uphold as members of the group, even when this is not always possible. These aspirations are constitutive of the scientific ‘form of life’. I argue that science and religion are distinct forms of life, and through their formative aspirations can be differentiated from one another. Drawing on the theory of Elective Modernism (Collins and Evans 2017), I argue that the formative aspirations of science overlap with democratic values. Media representations of science shape public understanding. Non-fiction television is a ubiquitous and trusted medium for the communication of science. Non-fiction science television programme makers were interviewed to understand the process of science television production: the pressures, tensions and constraints inherent to this process. I analyse representations of science in British non-fiction television programmes and argue that a ‘religious’ portrayal of science can be identified in some programmes. I identify a contrasting ‘secular’ portrayal of science in other programmes. The religious portrayal presents science as providing a definitive creation narrative. In this portrayal scientific knowledge is presented as a set of certain and immutable truths which are revealed by nature with little or no human intervention. In this portrayal science is presented as providing meaning. The secular portrayal’s representation aligns more closely with a sociological understanding of science. In this portrayal scientific knowledge is represented as requiring human skill to produce and as being subject to change, revision and debate. Science in this portrayal is represented as producing both positive and negative outcomes for society. From the perspective of Elective Modernism, if citizens are to properly understand, engage with and value science they need an understanding informed by sociological conceptions of science which emphasise science’s formative aspirations as its defining characteristic. The requirements for the production of an ‘elective modernist’ portrayal of science, one which foregrounds the formative aspirations of science, are discussed. The problematic consequences of the religious portrayal of science are laid out. Presenting science as a religion disguises its formative aspirations. This provides an inaccurate picture of how science works and a widespread (mis)understanding of science as a religion would undermine democratic society. iii Contents Declaration ........................................................................................................ i Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... ii Abstract ............................................................................................................. iii Contents ........................................................................................................... iv Tables and Figures .......................................................................................... viii INTRODUCTION SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY: ESTABLISHING NORMAL SERVICE ..................... 1 Invisible Normativity .......................................................................................... 1 The Absence of Normative Justification ....................................................... 5 Restoring Normativity ....................................................................................... 6 Research Questions ....................................................................................... 11 Structure ........................................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 1: SCIENCE AND RELIGION ..................................................... 17 Science ............................................................................................................ 18 Religion ............................................................................................................. 28 Science and Religion: Similar but (Aspirationally) Different ..................... 36 Conclusions: Science and Religion Defined .............................................. 43 CHAPTER 2: SCIENCE, PUBLIC(S) & MEDIA: REPRESENTATION, COMMUNICATION AND UNDERSTANDING ......................................................................... 46 Understanding Science ................................................................................. 48 Communicating Science .............................................................................. 62 Understanding Science Communicators: Shifting the Gaze from Products to Producers ................................................................................... 72 Conclusions ....................................................................................................

Load more