Merton Thesis

Sociology
Portal
Theory · History
Positivism · Antipositivism Functionalism · Conflict theory Middle-range · Mathematical Critical theory · Socialization Structure and agency
Research methods
Quantitative · Qualitative Historical · Computational Ethnographic
Topics · Subfields
Cities · Class · Crime · Culture Deviance · Demography · Education Economy · Environment · Family Gender · Health · Industry · Internet Knowledge · Law · Medicine Politics · Mobility · Race and ethnicity Rationalization · Religion · Science Secularization · Social networks Social psychology · Stratification
Categories · Lists
Journals · Sociologists Article index · Outline
v · d · e

The Merton Thesis is an argument about the nature of early experimental science proposed by Robert K. Merton. Similar to Max Weber's famous claim on the link between Protestant ethic and the capitalist economy, Merton argued for a similar positive correlation between the rise of 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 doctoral dissertation (and two years later his first monograph by the same title)Science, Technology and Society in 17th-Century England raised important issues on the connections between religion and the rise of modern science, became a significant work in the realm of the 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 methodology; secondly, it puts forward the argument that the popularity of science in England in 17th century, and the religious demography of the Royal Society (English scientists of that time were predominantly Protestants or Puritans) can be explained by a correlation between Protestantism and the scientific values.^[4] He focuses on English Puritanism and German Pietism as responsible for the development of the scientific revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries. Merton explains that the connection between religious affiliation and interest in science is a result of a significant synergy between the ascetic Protestant values and those of modern science.^[5] Protestant values encouraged scientific research by allowing science to identify the God influence on world and thus providing religious justifications for scientific research.^[1]

Criticism

The first part of his thesis has been criticized for insufficient consideration of the roles of mathematics and the mechanical philosophy in the scientific revolution. The second part has been criticized for the difficulty involved in defining who counts as a Protestant of the "right type" without making arbitrary distinctions. It is also criticized for failing to explain why non-Protestants do science (consider the Catholics Copernicus, da Vinci, Descartes, Galileo, or Huygens) 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 notes that institutional legitimacy was acquired, science no longer needed the religion, eventually becoming a counterforce, leading to religious decline. Nonetheless, early on, religion is a major factor that allowed the scientific revolution to occur.^[1] While the Merton thesis doesn't 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 English scientific community.^[9]

Quotes

• "It is the thesis of this study that the Puritan ethic, as an ideal – typical expression of the value – attitudes basic to ascetic Protestantism generally, so canalized the interests of seventeenth century Englishmen as to constitute one important element in the enhanced cultivation of science." – Robert K. Merton, Science, Technology and Society
• "If this congeniality of the Puritan and the scientific temper partly explains the increased tempo of scientific activity during the later seventeenth century, by no means does it account for the particular foci of scientific and technological investigation. Was the choice of problems a wholly personal concern, completely unrelated to the socio-cultural background ? Or was this selection significantly limited and guided by social forces?" – Robert K. Merton, Science, Technology and Society

Notes

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

References

• George Becker, The merton thesis: Oetinger and German Pietism, a significant negative case, Sociological Forum, Issue: Volume 7, Number 4, December 1992
• I. Bernard Cohen (ed.), Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science: the Merton Thesis, Ruthers University Press, ISBN 0-8135-1530-0
• H. Floris Cohen, The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, University of Chicago Press, 1994, ISBN 0-226-11280-2, Google Print, pp. 320–321
• Gary B. Ferngren, Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. Google Print, p.125
• Andrew Gregory, 1998, handouts for course 'The Scientific Revolution' at The Scientific Revolution, doc file online
• Russel Heddendorf, Religion, Science, and the Problem of Modernity, JASA 38 (December 1986): 226–231.
• Roy Porter, Mikulas Teich, The Scientific Revolution in National Context, Cambridge University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-521-39699-9, Google Print, p.179
• Piotr Sztompka, Robert K. Merton, in Blackwell Companion to Major Contemporary Social Theorists, George Ritzer (ed.), Blackwell Publishing, 2003, ISBN 1-4051-0595-X Google Print, p.13

Further reading

• Steven Shapin, Understanding the Merton Thesis, Isis, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Dec., 1988), pp. 594–605