TheMerton thesis is an argument about the nature of earlyexperimental science proposed byRobert K. Merton. Similar toMax Weber'sfamous claim on the link betweenProtestant work ethic and thecapitalist economy, Merton argued for a similar positivecorrelation between the rise ofProtestantPietism and early experimental science.[1] The Merton thesis has resulted in continuous debates.[2]
Although scholars are still debating it, Merton's 1936doctoral 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 thesociology of science and continues to be cited in new scholarship.[3] Merton further developed this thesis in other publications.
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 andmethodology; secondly, it puts forward the argument that the popularity of science inEngland in the 17th century, and the religiousdemography of theRoyal Society (English scientists of that time were predominantlyPuritans or otherProtestants) can be explained by acorrelation between Protestantism and the scientific values (seeMertonian norms).[4]
Merton focuses on English Puritanism andGerman Pietism as being responsible for the development of theScientific Revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries. He explains that the connection betweenreligious affiliation and interest in science is a result of a significant synergy between theascetic Protestant values and those of modern science.[5] Protestant values encouraged scientific research by allowing science to identifyGod's influence on the world and thus providing religious justification for scientific research.[1]
The first part of Merton's thesis has been criticized for insufficient consideration of the roles ofmathematics and themechanical 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 theCatholicsCopernicus,da Vinci,Descartes, orGalileo) 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]
 | Theneutrality of this article isdisputed. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please do not remove this message untilconditions to do so are met.(August 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
In 1958, American sociologistGerhard Lenski published a book[10] summarizing an empirical study of the influence of religious affiliation among residents of theDetroit, Michigan area. Among other insights, he interpenetrated his study to reveal that there were significant differences betweenCatholics on the one hand, and(white) Protestants andJews on the other hand, with regard to economics and the sciences.
Lenski's data supported the basic hypotheses ofMax Weber's workThe Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. According to Lenski, the "contributions of Protestantism to material progress have been largely unintended by-products of certain distinctive Protestant traits. This was a central point in Weber's theory." Lenski noted that more than a hundred years prior to Weber,John Wesley, one of the founders of theMethodist church, had observed that "diligence and frugality" made Methodists wealthy. "In an early era, Protestantasceticism 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 theReformation and the Catholic church's reaction to it. In Lenski's view, the Reformation encouraged intellectual autonomy among Protestants, in particular theAnabaptists, Puritans, Pietists, Methodists, andPresbyterians. In the Middle Ages, there had been tendencies toward intellectual autonomy, as exemplified in men likeErasmus. But after the Reformation, the Catholic leaders increasingly identified these tendencies with Protestantism andheresy 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
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, traditionaldisputation 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]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
