Merton thesis

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Merton thesis is an argument about the nature of early

Protestant Pietism and early experimental science.[1] The Merton thesis has resulted in continuous debates.[2]

Although scholars are still debating it, Merton's 1936

sociology of science and continues to be cited in new scholarship.[3]
Merton further developed this thesis in other publications.

Thesis

The Merton thesis has two separate parts: firstly, it presents a theory that science changes due to an accumulation of observations and improvement in experimental technique and

Protestants) can be explained by a correlation between Protestantism and the scientific values (see Mertonian norms).[4]

Merton focuses on English Puritanism and

ascetic Protestant values and those of modern science.[5] Protestant values encouraged scientific research by allowing science to identify God's influence on the world and thus providing religious justification for scientific research.[1]

Criticism

The first part of Merton's thesis has been criticized for insufficient consideration of the roles of

Catholics Copernicus, da Vinci, Descartes, or Galileo) and conversely why Protestants of the "right type" are not all interested in science.[4][6][7]

Merton, acknowledging the criticism, replied that the Puritan ethos was not necessary, although it did facilitate development of science.[8] He also noted that when science had acquired institutional legitimacy, it no longer needed religion, eventually becoming a counterforce, leading to religious decline. Nonetheless, early on, in Merton's view religion was a major factor that allowed the scientific revolution to occur.[1] While the Merton thesis does not explain all the causes of the scientific revolution, it does illuminate possible reasons why England was one of its driving motors and the structure of the English scientific community.[9]

Support

In 1958, American sociologist

(white) Protestants and Jews
on the other hand, with regard to economics and the sciences.

Lenski's data supported the basic hypotheses of

Methodist church, had observed that "diligence and frugality" made Methodists wealthy. "In an early era, Protestant asceticism and dedication to work, as noted both by Wesley and Weber, seem to have been important patterns of action contributing to economic progress." However, Lenski said, asceticism was rare among modern Protestants, and the distinctive Protestant doctrine of "the calling" was largely forgotten. Instead, modern (white) Protestants and Jews had a high degree of "intellectual autonomy" that facilitated scientific and technical advance.[10](pp350–352) By contrast, Lenski pointed out, Catholics developed an intellectual orientation which valued "obedience" to the teachings of their church above intellectual autonomy, which made them less inclined to enter scientific careers. Catholic sociologists[11][12] had come to the same conclusions.[10]
(pp283–284)

Lenski traced these differences back to the

Presbyterians. In the Middle Ages, there had been tendencies toward intellectual autonomy, as exemplified in men like Erasmus. But after the Reformation, the Catholic leaders increasingly identified these tendencies with Protestantism and heresy
and demanded that Catholics be obedient and faithful to ecclesiastical discipline. In Lenski's opinion, his study showed that these differences between Protestants and Catholics survived to the present day. As a consequence

"none of the predominantly and devoutly Catholic nations in the modern world can be classified as a leading industrial nation. Some Catholic nations – such as France, Italy, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile – are quite highly industrialized, but none of them are leaders in the technological and scientific fields, nor do they seem likely to become so. Recently [1963] some Brazilian Catholic social scientists compared their country's progress with that of the United States and concluded that the chief factor responsible for the differential rates of development is the religious heritage of the two nations."[10](pp347–349)

Puritans and Pietists both contributed to intellectual autonomy and provided intellectual tools and values important for science.[13] As an example, pietism challenged the orthodoxy via new media and formats: Periodical journals gained importance versus the former pasquills and single thesis, traditional disputation was replaced by competitive debating, which tried to gain new knowledge instead of defending orthodox scholarship.[14] It is a part of the forces that lead to modernity.[15][page needed]

References

  1. ^ a b c Sztompka, 2003
  2. ^ Cohen, 1990
  3. ^ Merton Awarded Nation's Highest Science Honor
  4. ^ a b Gregory, 1998
  5. ^ Becker, 1992
  6. ^ Ferngen, 2002
  7. ^ Porter & Teich 1992
  8. ^ Heddendorf, 1986]
  9. ^ Cohen, 1994
  10. ^ a b c d Lenski, G. (1963) [1958]. The Religious Factor: A sociological study of religion's impact on politics, economics, and family life (Revised ed.). Garden City, NY.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  11. ^ O'Dea, Thomas F. (1958). The Catholic Dilemma: An inquiry into the intellectual life. New York, NY.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  12. ^ Christ, Frank L.; Sherry, Gerard, eds. (1961). American Catholicism and the Intellectual Ideal. New York, NY.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  13. ^ Gregory, Andrew (1998). "Lecture 14 – Science and Religion in the Seventeenth-Century" (course handout). HPCS 215. The Scientific Revolution. London, UK: University College London. Archived from the original on 2006-05-13.
  14. ^ Gierl, Martin (1997). Pietismus und Aufklärung: theologische Polemik und die Kommunikationsreform der Wissenschaft am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts [Pietism and enlightenment, theological polemic and the reform of science communication end of the 17th century]. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  15. – via Google Books.

Sources

Also available as:
– via blackwellreference.com.

Further reading