Prophets, puppets, and pinheads: Contesting the authority of science in the COVID-19 era.

This article studies resemblances between academic postmodernism and today's popular contestations of the authority of science by means of a qualitative content analysis of 657 critical online comments on a Belgian newspaper article about the COVID-19 crisis that features a prominent Belgian virologist. The comments portray scientists as (1) prophets who pretend their knowledge to be superior to competing understandings of the world; (2) puppets who figure in hidden schemes that cannot stand the light of day; and (3) pinheads who lack the intellectual competence to give solid scientifically informed advice. While the first two critiques do at first sight resemble academic postmodernism, they are in fact informed by the markedly modern understanding that objective and neutral scientific knowledge is as feasible as it is desirable. What we find, then, are not contestations of the authority of science per se, but indeed of practices deemed deviant aberrations of science.

How can big data shape the field of non-religion studies? And why does it matter?

The shift of attention from the decline of organized religion to the rise of post-Christian spiritualities, anti-religious positions, secularity, and religious indifference has coincided with the deconstruction of the binary distinction between "religion" and "non-religion"-initiated by spirituality studies throughout the 1980s and recently resumed by the emerging field of non-religion studies. The current state of cross-national surveys makes it difficult to address the new theoretical concerns due to (1) lack of theoretically relevant variables, (2) lack of longitudinal data to track historical changes in non-religious positions, and (3) difficulties in accessing small and/or hardly reachable sub-populations of religious nones. We explore how user profiling, text analytics, automatic image classification, and various research designs based on the integration of survey methods and big data can address these issues as well as shape non-religion studies, promote its institutionalization, stimulate interdisciplinary cooperation, and improve the understanding of non-religion by redefining current methodological practices.

'A necessary evil that does not "really" cure disease': The domestication of biomedicine by Dutch holistic general practitioners.

Against the background of studies about the domestication of complementary and alternative medicine into biomedical settings, this article studies how biomedicine is integrated into holistic settings. Data from 19 in-depth interviews with Dutch holistic general practitioners who combine complementary and alternative medicine with conventional treatments demonstrate that they do not believe that conventional biomedicine 'really' cures patients. They feel that it merely suppresses the physical symptoms of a disease, leaving the more fundamental and non-physical causes intact. As a consequence, they use conventional biomedicine for strictly practical and instrumental reasons. This is the case in life-threatening or acute situations, understood as non-physical causes of disease having been left untreated with complementary and alternative medicine for too long. More mundane reasons for its use are the need to take patients' demands for biomedical treatment seriously or to obey authoritative rules, regulations and protocols. The integration of biomedicine into complementary and alternative medicine, then, follows the same logic of domestication of complementary and alternative medicine into biomedicine: it is made subordinate to the prevailing model of health and illness and treated as a practical add-on that does not 'really' cure people.