Science, Jews, and Secular Culture by David A. Hollinger

Author:David A. Hollinger [Hollinger, David A.]
Language: eng
Format: epub, pdf
ISBN: 9781400847747
Publisher: PrincetonUP
Published: 2021-07-15T00:00:00+00:00

NOTES

1. Robert K. Merton, “A Note on Science and Democracy," Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1 (1942): 116.

2. The chief exception to this was published in 1952, well before the discipline of sociology of science actually developed; Bernard Barber, Science and the Social Order (New York, 1952).

3. In his exhaustive survey of the sociological literature on the scientific ethos, Nico Stehr does not even find cause to mention the relation of science to democracy as an issue under discussion. Stehr distinguishes between two active traditions of research and analysis, one concerned with “cognitive” norms and the other with “social” norms; both study life within communities of scientists. See Nico Stehr, “The Ethos of Science Revisited,” Sociological Inquiry 48 (1978): 172-196, esp. 178.

4. Paul Feyerabend, Science in a Free Society (London, 1978), 76.

5. Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure: Toward the Codification of Theory and Research (Glencoe, Ill., 1949), 307-316 (1957 edition, 550-561; 1968 edition, 604-615); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, ed. Norman W. Storer (Chicago, 1973), 267-278; Robert K. Merton, “The Sociology of Science: An Episodic Memoir,” in The Sociology of Science in Europe, ed. Robert K. Merton and Jerry Gaston (Carbondale, Ill., 1977), 48-50. It is perfectly reasonable, of course, that sociologists—including Merton, his followers, and his critics—should focus on what this text has done, and can or cannot still do, for the sociology of science; rarely does the sociological literature address as a historian would the historical setting and significance of this text. One very brief but sensible effort to do this, however, has been made in passing by M. D. King, while performing one of the most compelling assessments yet made of the limitations of Merton’s work; see M. D. King, “Reason, Tradition, and the Progressiveness of Science,” History and Theory 10 (1971): 15-16. Another interesting paper appeared too late for me to use: Yaron Ezrahi, “Science and the Problem of Authority in Democracy,” in Science and Social Structure: A Festschrift for Robert K. Merton, ed. Thomas Gieryn (New York, 1980), 43-60; see esp. 46.

6. Storer, in Merton and Gaston, Sociology of Science, 226.

7. Robert K. Merton, “Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England,” Osiris 4 (1938), pt. 2, 360-632; I have used the edition brought out as a book (New York, 1970). See Thomas S. Kuhn’s account of this work’s significance in Kuhn’s “The History of Science,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. David L. Sills, 14 (1968): 79-80.

8. Robert K. Merton, “Science and the Social Order,” Philosophy of Science 5 (1938): 321-322, 327.

9. Merton, “Note,” 126.

10. Ibid., 115-121.

11. Ibid., 121-123.

12. Ibid., 125-126.

13. Ibid., 126.

14. William Galt, “Science and Democracy,” Journal of Psychology 14 (1942): 155-160.

15. E.g., Harold D. Lasswell, “Science and Democracy: The Search for Perfection,” Vital Speeches 7 (November 15, 1940): 85; the New York Times editorial, “Science and Democracy,” quoted in Science 86 (October 22, 1937): 375-376; Edgar J. Witzemann, “The So-Called Scientific Method and Its Role as a Process in Democracy,”

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.