Two scientists of unequal status are guests on a radio panel show. This week’s topic for discussion is prompted by the question, ‘what is science?’ The first definition is given by the scientist of lesser status who says, ‘above all, it is about not resorting to supernatural explanations but attempting to bring ideas into line with the observable world. It is about constructing plausible narratives, and convincing stories in which the variables of the narrative are connected together by testable propositions.’ The higher status scientist replies, ‘I don’t agree. What we’re really trying to do, I would say, certainly in physics, is to observe nature in an objective way and to try and build theories which function with increasing autonomy from human input. The ultimate aim is to remove the human from the story altogether.’ The members of the radio audience are left to draw their own conclusions as to whether the hierarchal differential between the two scientists is adequately reinforced by their brief exchange. For the rest of the programme, the scientists venture forth with other opinions and observations, which they decorate with intricate whorls and sinuous ornamentation, and which are generally pulled off with a panache that is routine for those well practised in their respective areas of specialisation.
