Evangelizing the Cosmos: Science Documentaries and the Dangers of Wonder Overload

By: David A. Kirby

​The end of December often brings a lot of dormant feelings to the forefront. Winter holidays, breaks from work and school, and the culmination of another year can bring peace, excitement, nervousness, and often…wonder. 

Have you ever felt, even subconsciously, wonder with science in popular media? Did you know it’s there for a reason? David Kirby takes us into this world, giving us a cautionary tale and advice. A shortened and updated version of his article is below. You can read his full piece on his blog.

Image: Flickr.com

​Evangelizing the Cosmos: Introduction

​Any fan of popular science would be excused if they felt as if they were currently experiencing “wonder overload.” The concept of “wonder” has become omnipresent across the science and entertainment landscape but it has particularly found a home in contemporary science documentaries. Wonder certainly played a central role as a framing device for the recent Cosmos re-boot presented by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Indeed, we are told in the series that deGrasse Tyson’s “spaceship of the imagination” is “fueled by equal parts of science and wonder.” 

There are also many scenes in the new Cosmos where deGrasse Tyson reminds us that we need to be humble and stand in awe of nature. My former colleague at the University of Manchester, physicist Brian Cox, has hosted a series of highly rated science documentaries in the UK over the past five years that also focused on “wonder” with the not-so subtle titles of Wonders of the Solar System, Wonders of the Universe, and Wonders of Life. 

​Wonder has proven to be a useful means of attracting casual viewers to a science documentary, but such a deep association of science with wonder is problematic; not least ways because of the historic connection between notions of wonder and religious conceptions of nature.

​In my opinion the real wonder of science is that despite being a product of flawed human societies it has allowed us to understand and engage with our world in a meaningful way. I doubt, however, that our future science documentaries will take that as their narrative framework.

​Constructing Science as Active Wonder in Science Documentaries

​In essence, these recent science documentaries represent one of the ways that the scientific community is attempting to wrest away from the religious community the notion of wonder as a way to frame of our relationship to the natural world. But it is the polysemic quality of the word “wonder” that is important for these science documentaries. Wonder not only means to “marvel” but also to “ponder.” Unlike their portrayal of religion as “helpless wonder”, recent science documentaries portray science as an “active wonder” where at least some humans can do something with their awe of nature in addition to marveling at it. 

Neil deGrasse Tyson gazes at the wonders of the universe from the “spaceship of the imagination” in Cosmos

In Cosmos and other recent science documentaries we are certainly meant to marvel at the natural world, but we are also meant to be even more in awe of scientists’ ability to pose and answer questions about the physical laws governing this complexity. These documentaries try to conceptualize the late Carl Sagan’s belief that science does not destroy our sense of wonder but that our ability to understand the universe leaves us with “undiminished wonder.” For example, in the episode “Hiding in the Light” from the Cosmos re-boot we do not lose our awe at the notion of an infinite universe, instead we gain a new sense of wonder at our ability to “see all the way back to the birth of our universe.”

---

So, in Cosmos and other contemporary science documentaries audiences marvel at the CGI enhanced wonders of nature, but they are asked to stand even more in awe of the wonders of science and the heroic scientists who wield this tool. The danger with this “secular wonder,” though, is that wonder still has its spiritual connotations and these recent science documentaries are merely transferring the object of reverence from nature to science and scientists. The sense of “helpless wonder” that the documentaries consider an ineffectual approach to nature has been shifted on to the audience who can now only sit and marvel at the work of scientists. The deployment of wonder in this way is meant to foster an appreciation for science and the work of scientists, but the risk is that appreciation for science turns into the worship of scientists.

​Scientific Uncertainty and the Dangers of Wonder Overload

​An over reliance on wonder in science documentaries gives the false impression that scientists are never wrong and that uncertainty is not an integral part of the scientific process. The danger for the scientific community is that an overdose of wonder can lead to disillusionment when science inevitably proves to be fallible. Reverence, rather than appreciation, for science leads to situations like the one in Italy in 2012 where six scientists were put in jail because their scientific predictions turned out to be incorrect. The current pandemic has also begun to teach the public an important lesson about the inherent existence of uncertainty in the scientific process.

When we expect scientists to always have the right answer, right away we end up with situations like the public confusion about the efficacy of masks in slowing the spread of the novel coronavirus, which led to anger at scientists for changing their public statements about masks early in the pandemic. Reverence for science can also lead to a public that is hesitant to challenge scientists. Just like with religious figures, if the public is too in awe of those in authority then they do not feel comfortable challenging their pronouncements or actions. Uncritical trust in scientists can be an issue during crises like the COVID pandemic when the public often cannot tell when scientists are actually trustworthy or whether these “scientists” are taking advantage of the public’s reverence for scientists.

---

About the author: David A. Kirby (He/Him/His)
David A. Kirby was a practicing evolutionary geneticist before leaving bench science for science communication. He is Chair of the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies in Liberal Arts at Cal Poly University in San Luis Obispo. He is author of Lab Coats in Hollywood: Science, Scientists and Cinema. His current book project, Indecent Science: Religion, Science, and Movie Censorship, explores how movies served as a battleground over science’s role in influencing morality.  
Website: https://thescienceandentertainmentlab.com/ 
Twitter: @king_gwangi 

---