On Mulkay's Critique About The Thesis Of Merton's Norms Of Science

This paper will propose and answer the following two questions: First, what is " Mulkay's critique about the thesis of Mertonian norms "? In other words, Mulkay is how to carry out the critique of Merton's scientific norms. Second, the Mulkay's critiques are exactly right? Whether or not hit the target of critique.Therefore in the first chapter this paper attempts to clarify the specific meaning of Merton's "ethos of science" and "Mertonian norms", and then show some self-reflection to norms that proposed by Merton himself.In the second and third part of this paper, it is discussed in detail to Mulkay 's critique of Mertonian norms. Mulkay's critique can be divided into two phases. In the " Some aspects of cultural growth in the natural Sciences," Mulkay indicate there is no empirical studies that show that the scientists have agreed to comply with all Mertonian norms, in his view that scientists have all agreed to comply with the Mertonian norms shows that it is just a convenient study suppose, not fact. In Mulkay's view, the important developments in science there was no need to rely on these assumptions of Mertonian norms, but rather cross-fertilization and the role of -the diversity of acts play an important role in the real innovation in sciences.In " Norms and Ideology in Science " and other works, to the publication of academic papers as an example, Mulkay pointed out that it must be rewarded to publishing papers of scientists, but their confrere can not conclude whether certain social norms are followed by scientists in the course of study, because they do not have information about the author. Mulkay thought that Mertonian norms that can better be conceived some vocabularies of justification or ideology. To be driven by the interests scientists community choose the repertoire that represent scientific norms.To Mulkay's critique about Mertonian norms, this paper argues that it has the experiential reality. However, this does not mean that this paper entirely agree with the views of Mulkay. Thus, in the last part of this paper I have putted forward three points of views.First of all, this paper argues that, Mulkay overlooked the association of Mertonian norms to conscience. The concerned acts of conscience of scientist, can only play a guiding role, but an expectation. Nevertheless, this responsibility of ignoring can not be completely attributed to Mulkay.Secondly, this paper claims that Mertonian norms can make regulatory application like Kant's rational ideas, in virtue of the distinction between the regulation and constitution proposed by Kant. Despite this sense of scientific norms can not play constitutive role to the accumulation of scientific knowledge, it always plays the role of guide or regulation as "idea" and norm. Mulkay had refuted the things on the first level, that is, as a constitutive role of norms. But for the second level, that is, plays the role of regulatory norms, Mulkay's critique is invalid. Thus, we can not follow Mulkay that Mertonian norms are only just some vocabulary, it can be said, as the idea of moral, norms should always be retained.Finally, this paper argues that these scientific norms have value in itself. They actively shape scientist as a regulative thing; they attract scientists to pursuit continuous development of scientific knowledge. It can be said that the Norms themselves have the attraction to scientific development, Rather than only "interests" play a role as Mulkay said.