After holding the debate for and against space exploration in class, I was more interested in seeing how the real debate was being laid out. Looking into more of the arguments on either side I realized that there were many parallels between this debate and the evolution argument. So my curiosity took me to compare and contrast the two debates based on how their viewed as scientific controversies, how their arguments are framed, and how society has an impact on the outcomes.
The debate on whether the space exploration program should continue falls under the category of a scientific controversy. Typically the scientific controversies that we have examined so far in this class are based on one of two things: the difference in scientific and professional opinion on the analysis of data or information, or the moral, religious, or personal beliefs of scientists on a topic. Similar to the evolution argument, the argument for space exploration is not based on the variances of analysis. The space debate is based on scientist’s personal opinion of the merits of space exploration. With this particular controversy a lot of people’s livelihoods are at stake so those arguing for space exploration speak with intense motivation and passion. In the Intelligent Design debate, those for teaching Intelligent Design are arguing based on their religious beliefs which is also a source of passionate discussion.
This leads into the framing of the arguments on either side of space exploration. Framing is how the information is portrayed to a given audience and is crucial to any argument or controversy. It’s interesting to see that the general attitudes in framing the space exploration argument is very analogous to the framing of the evolution argument. Thinking back to the documentary in class, those arguing for Intelligent Design were very passionate about their beliefs because they were tied to more than their scientific understanding; in this case, Intelligent Design was tied to their religious beliefs. For space exploration, those arguing to continue the program are arguing for their very livelihoods. With careers that have been based in the aerospace industry for many decades, it would be difficult for some to find work outside of this very specialized field. On the other side of the debate, the Darwinian evolutionists did not do a very good job presenting their argument by coming forward with ostentatious attitudes. Somewhat similarly, almost any argument made to shut something down that has been run continuously for a long period of time, and with generally strong support from the public, comes across in a negative light.
Delving further into the frames used, the most common frames were very similar to those we used in the class debate. Stephen J. Dubner, journalist and author, listed these frames as the most common found in his research and interviews in his blog on “Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?":
· Colonization – to hedge catastrophe on Earth
· Spin-Off Technologies
· Developing International Cooperation – can also lead to less cost
· National Prestige
· Answering the question “Are we alone?”
The last point can also be compared to the Intelligent Design argument which is that the Earth and all its creatures are so intricate that there must be some intentional, intelligent designer. This thought and questioning if we are alone in the universe tie back to some blend of religion and curiosity of the unknown. These arguments become the most difficult to defend against because you begin to attack people’s belief structures when trying to disprove their point. These questions are also why these debates are so controversial and are continually brought up.
So getting back to the purpose of framing, at the end of the argument you want everyone to be rooting for your side. For government funded agencies, like NASA, this point is crucial to operations because the government finds it much harder to fund something that the public isn’t behind. And this transitions in the course concept that science is a social enterprise. This course concept was first defined when speaking about how many parties can be involved and others’ perceptions of scientist can affect their credibility which was seen in the Ulcer-bug case study. In the case of Intelligent Design, their argument doesn’t just stem from a scientific basis but incorporates other facets of society, such as religion, and backing from the church has a huge impact on how this message is perceived as well as who is willing to buy in. And in the case of space exploration, science becomes an extremely social enterprise because the space program needs public backing and support to continue to move forward. Because of this, NASA has aggressively worked to get people involved, invested, and intrigued by space exploration.
Looking at the homepage of their website is evidence of NASA’s efforts to convey the intrigue and importance of their science. Reeling across the center of the screen is a photo album of new discoveries and advancements made in space exploration that grab the viewers’ attention and get them interested in reading more. NASA isn’t using this to reinforce their credibility or publish their findings. These “advertisements” are there to get the public interested in being a part of the space program or at a minimum finding out more.
The Intelligent Design argument focuses mainly on getting their word out by using the media as a conduit to the public en masse. When looking at the homepage on their website, you can tell they are playing against their stereotype of religious fanatics and trying to gain the appeal of a more techy “in-the-know” audience. Both the Intelligent Design group and NASA as a corporation are trying to appeal to large numbers of people to increase their public appeal.
Those with universal curiosity will continue to wonder if we are alone in the universe, and that question can only be answered by continuing with humankind’s exploration of space. And the question of which theory of evolution can truly describe species genetic progression will be difficult to answer in the scientific field because the results become more qualitative than quantitative and religion will always be a part of the argument. Both of these debates will continue to crop up time after time because both sides have strong points that can’t be answered definitively.
*Dubner, S. J. (2008, January 11). Is space exploration worth the cost? a freakonomics quorom. Retrieved from http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/
