Robert K. Merton and the Modern Ethos of Science
The problem isn’t just a few rabble-rousers who managed to infiltrate science from the “studies” departments.
Written by Noah Carl.
In his pioneering work The Sociology of Science, Robert K. Merton defined the “ethos of science” as that “affectively toned complex of values and norms which is held to be binding on the man of science”. Although the ethos had never been formally codified, he argued it could be inferred from the “moral consensus of scientists” as expressed in “countless writings on the spirit of science” and “indignation directed toward contraventions of the ethos”.
As to the specific norms Merton was referring to, he outlined four – which have since become known as the Mertonian norms of ideal scientific practice.
The first is universalism: scientists and their claims should be judged on the basis of impersonal criteria. The second is communism: scientific discoveries are a product of collaboration and are owned by the whole community. The third is disinterestedness: science is done for the sake of advancing knowledge, not for some other reason. And the fourth is organised scepticism: scientific claims must be tested and verified before they can be accepted.
Merton’s book was published in 1973 – more than half a century ago. What is the status of Mertonian norms today? Adherence is not what it could be, to put it mildly. Scientists become the targets of vicious cancellation campaigns if they step out of line on hot-button issues. They must voice support for inane left-wing tropes like “diversity” that have been shoehorned into academia by activists. And they’re told that basic concepts like objectivity are manifestations of a nefarious ideology called “whiteness”.
The problem isn’t just a few rabble-rousers who managed to infiltrate science from the “studies” departments. Major institutions like journals and professional associations have become mouthpieces for left-wing ideology – frequently spouting the sort of verbiage you’d expect to hear at the DSA Convention. Of course, some disciplines are more politicised than others, with social science and medicine faring worse than biology, chemistry and physics.
One area that has a long and storied history of politicisation is the genetic basis of human intelligence, especially group differences. As I proceed to argue, all four Mertonian norms have been largely abandoned by the scholars and other gatekeepers working in this area.
