To receive the most support from society's citizens, science needs to be structured socially. Robert Merton at least claims that this is the sentiment (Merton 267). But the real question is: Are the author's opinions accurate? Before determining if the author's claims are true, it is crucial to understand the author's reasoning and then to examine it. According to Merton, shifts in societal viewpoints have an impact on research, just like they do on other endeavors requiring social cooperation. As a result, the communities have varying opinions towards science, sometimes favoring it and other times disliking it. The field that was ones seen with a lot of respect and even seen as the most important in the society is now seen from a negative perspective, and the view is spreading very fast. Therefore, social arrangements should be involved in the running of scientific affairs to ensure that they become more acceptable to the societies. Merton mentions disinterestedness, communism, universalism and organized skepticism as the institutional imperatives that affect science and should therefore be considered when socially organizing science.
Universalism is expressed by the fact that all scientific truths are subjected to impersonal criteria that already exists at the time of the discovery of the truth (Merton 272). The truth must agree with what has been observed and already exist and confirmed knowledge. Whether or not the knowledge is accepted or rejected should not be dependent on the attributes of the discoverer such as their origin. The judgment should base on objectivity. Particular criteria should not be the basis of telling the validity of discoveries. Therefore, laws such as Newton's law of gravity cannot be repealed by an Angiophobe. Nevertheless, scientists fail to recognize the fact that science is part of the social structure that does not always agree with scientific principles. The society is ethnocentric. Therefore, larger culture puts a lot of strains on the ethos of science. Science plays the role that the situations demand it plays. Therefore, depending on the environment, the role of science may vary. In cases of conflict, the role of science varies even more from the universal ways to more particular and subjective modes of working and organization. According to Merton, scientists can be made into people of war if the situations demand that they are involved like in the world war. The author points out how science may even though supposedly universal, pays lip services to the imperative and implements discrimination based on the social status of the people. For instance, based on history the pioneers of fields like physics were Aryans. The author supposes that science previously involved different social structures. Democracy is the social fabric that most supports universalism. He goes ahead to say that democracy should be applied in such a way that it ensures the political apparatus maintain a proper implementation of universalism.
The second institutional imperative that the author points out is communism. According to o Merton, Communism is a concept that involves shared ownership (Merton 273). He points out that scientific discovery is as a result of contributions from the society that form common heritage that limits the ownership of the individual inventor. As a result, the scientists claims to their work is only confined to their recognition as the primary contributors to the works. Therefore, according to Merton the claims that the issuing of recognition as the sole property rights to individuals causes doubt over the priorities of scientists. Individual recognition has culminated to products of competition being communized and the esteem accumulated to the producers. Merton offers examples of how the different nations have taken up claims to prioritize and how the communal richness of science has been labeled with the names of the country. The author says that scientists should share their findings as not sharing regardless of not having ulterior motives may be seen as distasteful. The recognition of the contribution of communal character of science is further evident from the recognition of scientists of the input of their heritage to their scietifific discoveries and contributions. Merton claims that the perception of technology as being the property of individuals in capitalistic economies is in disharmony with the concept of communism.
Disinterestedness is another aspect that Merton highlights (Merton 274). According to the author, science has been associated with very minimal accounts of fraud, unlike other disciplines. He attributes the absence of many cases of fraud to the nature of science as a field rather than individuals. He says that it is not that the people are disinterested, but the institution is strict enough to verify the results of scientists. The author says that scientists are under pressure from their peers to produce accurate results. Therefore, the reliability of science is based on the ability of peers to examine findings and therefore control the products of the field. The author says that the reputability of science grows due to the technological evidence that emanates from it. Therefore, interested people may take advantage of the laity of the audience to pursue their agenda and therefore abuse the expert authority and create false claims that are pseudoscientific such as those about race and the economy. Therefore, the inability of lay people to differentiate truth and myths in science renders them susceptible to myths expressed in scientific language.
The fourth institutional imperative is the organized skepticism. It involves the temporary suspension of objective judgment scrutiny of beliefs using logical and empirical methods. The organized skepticism according to the author is a primary reason why science has been in conflict with other fields. The cause of the conflicts is that science is inquisitive about all aspects. The spheres that are institutionalized regarding their beliefs and leadership such as religion and religion are the ones that least appreciates being challenged by science. The problem happens when science researches into the other fields or when the other areas and institution put their control on science. Therefore, according to Merton, in the totalitarian societies of the modern days that exercise the centralization of authority in them, the depth of scientific activities is very limited.
Critique
Merton's argument about the interaction of science with the society is correct. It is true that the four institutional imperatives are important factors that dictate the way science is perceived by the modern society. However, even though some of the claims by the author are substantially correct, some are inconclusive and therefore fail to recognize that objectivity is primary to the development of scientific principles. The author also fails to realize that not allowing science some degree of independence from the rest of the society may lead to slippery slides. Giving priority to the relationship between science and other aspects of the society rather than its impartiality is not the correct way to solve the existing problem.
First, concerning the universality of science as a field, the concept is necessary for achievement of valid scientific results therefore, it is important to include it in order to avoid disparities that may cause increased social conflicts. Scientific discoveries should indeed be shared in the whole world in all similar conditions. It should be known that a principle in one part of the world should not deviate from another one in a different part of the world because of social reasons. However, it is also important to understand that even universality cannot be generalized. Universality can be applicable in one aspect, but not in another. After all, as long as the practice involves "a set of characteristic methods by means of which knowledge is certified", the practice should qualify as scientific because it uses universally applicable methods. Therefore, there should be an order of the things that universally apply across all societies and those that are socially affected and therefore affect some parts. For instance, the administration of science should base on the motives of the party sponsoring the research. In the case of conflict, it is only logical that every party will want to use their knowledge to survive and only those that effectively apply their science will survive. However, regardless of where a principle was applied, the law will still be universal. If a particular procedure results in a weapon, then it should work similarly under constant conditions somewhere else. As such, even though scientists should create a social arrangement to prevent conflicts, the social arrangement should be with regards to the administration of science and not the application of scientific principles to achieve the particular needs of people.
Regarding communism, it is not imperative based on the fact that in a capital economy it is important to determine ownership of discoveries because research studies are investments. It would be wrong to treat science as a communal aspect of the society in a time when capitalism is the way of life. Currently, science, just like all other aspects of the economy is controlled by the financiers. Scientists, just like anyone else have needs that they need that require financing. Therefore, even though scientific knowledge should be made public, the society should award the scientists like other professionals such as doctors. Therefore, in a society that is not communist, it is not possible to have communist institutions. The running of the fields of science should in line with the social arrangements. In capital societies that scientists currently live the arrangements of the fields of science should benefit the scholar to encourage more research and innovation.
The disinterestedness of science is also an institutional imperative of the fields rather than the trait of individual scientists. The truth is the times have changed, and science has changed with them. Scientists, just like other people are human and require the control of others to remain in line. The low levels of fraud are because of the examinations that scientists do on the works of each other rather than their intrinsic personalities. Therefore, institutions should be made within the scientific societies to ensure that the results of science remain authoritative. Nevertheless, because of the interference of outside factors like the economy and other social issues, it is impossible to prevent the low levels of fraud. About the issue, Merton does not give any solution. Nevertheless, the society should be educated to understand science rather than force science to change to suit the societal needs to know it.
Organized skepticism is necessary for science to flourish. After all, scientific research involves creating answers to problems that solve the problems of the world regardless of the source of the problem. Sometimes it may be important to ask questions about an aspect of religion and the policies of a country among other social issues because, without such questions, science will not be able to solve problems that affect the society. Therefore, despite the fact that organized skepticism creates avenues for disagreement with other social aspects, it cannot be prevented. Scientists can only ensure that they do research that produces answers that everyone will appreciate.
In summary, science exists with the societies. As such, it is affected by the social arrangements of the people. Therefore, the social organization should be done to the different areas of science with regards to administration to fit into the various contexts that it is applied. Nevertheless, the priority should not be to align science with the social principles but to retain the validity of scientific research.
Works Cited
Merton, Robert. "The Normative Structure of Science." 1942. 266-278.
