Why Being Right Doesn’t Make You Good: The Representation of Science and Religion in <i>South Park</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent scholarship, particularly within the sphere of science communication, has sought to provide an empirical map of the relationship between science and religion, often seeking to explain the persistence of religious belief and practice within a technoscientific world. The framing of science and religion in this context often presumes that the social relevance of both science and religion lies primarily in the epistemic claims both make about the natural world and can be captured through explicit discussion of the relationship between the two. This article argues that other meanings of science and religion are possible by highlighting a case that appears to have little interest in questions of reality and epistemology: the animated comedy South Park. Within the show, scientific and religious discourse and imagery are frequently positioned as being enmeshed within larger social issues, gaining meaning from the ways in which the characters use knowledge for a variety of ends, usually resulting in moral failure. As a story about how to be a good American, South Park positions science and religion as sites where morality can be tested, mediated by a sense of goodness that is presented to the audience as self-evident. While the generality of this specific construction of science and religion can be challenged, the show illustrates the need for a broader or more extensive examination of the multiple meanings that science and religion might have within the public sphere and popular culture, which are far broader than a specific discussion of their epistemic relationship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".