John C. Burnham

In How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States, John C. Burnham writes, “In American society…as in any society, the struggle between superstition and science has been fierce only when the one threatened the function of the other” (pg. 11). Burnham continues, “Well before the nineteenth century…innumerable examples confirm that superstition rested upon sources of authority that were either not dominant or that opponents of superstition were attempting to undermine or discredit. That is, either superstition deviated from dominant social standards, or the enemies of superstition tried to label superstitious beliefs socially deviant” (pg. 19). Finally, “In the twentieth century, two elements changed: the personnel who carried out the popularization, on the one hand, and the institutions through which popularization proceeded, on the other. Whereas in the nineteenth century scientists tended to do their own popularizing, in the twentieth others gradually took over” (pg. 31).
Burnham writes, “As the quest for facts and objectivity grew in journalism, and as journalists more and more did the actual work of popularizing health, so increasingly the picture that both children and adults received was one of disembodied facts, disembodied even though discovered by scientists and clothed with the authority of science” (pg. 81). He continues, “Two factors overwhelmingly determined the nature of such popular science as existed in America at the end of the eighteenth century. The first was the continued hegemony in the United States of English writers, publications, and thinkers…the second factor that placed science in American culture in 1800 was the lack of full-time scientists” (pg. 129). Further, “The basis for popular interest in science was not different from that on which Americans were pursuing other popularizations: items that were curious in themselves; those that…were awe inspiring – a large fish, an aurora, a great steam engine; and those that were practical” (pg. 141).
Turning to the twentieth century, Burnham writes, “The increasing presence of television after the 1950s oppressed and counteracted all serious attempts to popularize science. From the very beginning, successful educational television programs tried on one level or another to popularize science. They sometimes had a devoted following, but always a small one, which although representing one kind of success nevertheless rendered them ephemeral” (pg. 177). He continues, “The astonishingly large amount of study devoted to science journalism, science in the newspapers, and particularly the science writers caused many people to identify popularization of science with the writers and newspapers and, furthermore, to confuse the development of institutions with substantive popularization” (pg. 195). Further, “Science itself evolved from an understandable system to a body of complexity difficult to grasp; instead of explaining mystery, popularizers had to contain confusion. Instead of offering reductionism and the unity of nature, the purveyors of science tended to embrace romanticism” (pg. 225). Finally, according to Burnham, “In the twentieth century…the new authority was imposed through the media and advertising, thus uniting the two most traditional enemies of science in the popular sphere: superstitious authority and commercial interest” (pg. 229). In this way, “one important by-product of the personality or celebrity to whom journalists could attribute opinions was that the media established an image of science as the pronouncement of authorities. And, of course, since all facts were equally acceptable, reporters tried to interview authorities who would contradict each other…The media winner usually turned out to be the most photogenic or articulate, or both, or the most cooperative with the press, rather than the best exponent of research” (pg. 239).… (altro)