Psychedelic science as cosmic play, psychedelic humanities as perennial polemics? Or why we are still fighting over Max Weber’sScience as a Vocation

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-289
Author(s):  
Nicolas Langlitz

If it was indeed the fate of scientific work to become obsolete within 10–15 years, as Max Weber contended in Science as a Vocation, why does the Journal of Classical Sociology publish this article a century after publication of his famous lecture? Departing from anthropological fieldwork on the revival of psychedelic science since the 1990s, the author gives two answers. First, Weber provided a historically and culturally situated ideal type of vocational science with which we can compare and contrast the ethos of early twenty-first century scientists. The Swiss neuroscientist Franz X. Vollenweider, for example, defied the stern Protestantism of Weber’s vocational humanity and inferred from an amalgamation of psychedelic experiences and Hindu philosophemes a conception of science as play. Second, Weber not only contributed to the historical sociology of science an empirical description and conceptual analysis of turn-of-the-century scientific life in Germany and the United States but also unleashed a polemic against the confusion of facts and values. At a time when science studies and cognate fields of social research have formed a widespread consensus regarding the inseparability of description and prescription, Science as a Vocation has become a classic that offers orientation to opponents and supporters of value freedom alike. The article concludes with a plea to scholars in the nascent psychedelic humanities, which could easily be extended to anyone working between the two cultures of the sciences and the humanities, to cultivate value freedom as part of an epistemic virtue ethics.

2021 ◽  
pp. 016224392110260
Author(s):  
You-Na Lee ◽  
John P. Walsh

One hundred years ago, in his lecture Science as a Vocation, Max Weber prefigured a transition from science as a calling to science as bureaucratically organized work. He argued that a calling for science is critical for sustaining scientific work. Using Weber’s arguments for science as a vocation as a lens, in this paper, we discuss whether a calling for science may become difficult to maintain in increasingly bureaucratized scientific work and also whether such a calling is necessary for the advance of science. We present empirical evidence for this bureaucratization of scientific work and further develop Weber’s discussion of science by contrasting it with the views of other theorists of science and innovation. Finally, we discuss the implications of these theories, develop a set of policy recommendations, and outline a research agenda designed to develop science policies and a sociology of science that match this shift from vocation to bureaucracy in scientific work.


Author(s):  
Timofey Dmitriev

The paper highlights the context and the main points of the speech given by Max Weber at the International Congress of Arts and Science in St. Louis in September, 1904. It analyzes Weber’s views on the dynamics of social change as presented by the German classic in the shape of the comparative historical sociology of the European and American versions of modernity. The first part of the article covers the background and the most significant episodes of the trip to the United States undertaken by Max Weber and his wife Marianne. The second part of the article elucidates the main points of Weber’s speech in St. Louis. The third part examines the observations and conclusions of the specifics of American modernity made by Weber through his direct acquaintance with life in the United States. In conclusion, the paper proposes a brief analysis of Weber’s contribution to the development of historical sociology’s ideas about the nature and pathways of Western modernity.


1970 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 421-456
Author(s):  
A. P. M. Coxon ◽  
Patrick Doreian ◽  
Robin Oakley ◽  
Ian B. Stephen ◽  
Bryan R. Wilson ◽  
...  

1952 ◽  
Vol 139 (896) ◽  
pp. 300-313

The Atomic Energy Research Establishment was founded five years ago and has been built up round the buildings and grounds of the Royal Air Force station at Harwell in Berkshire. The four large hangars of the airfield (figure 1, plate 22) have been used to house the major experimental tools of the Establishment—the two atomic piles; the cyclotron (figure 2, plate 22), the Van de Graaf generator and linear accelerator; the electromagnetic separator. They also house the large central workshop of the Establishment. A new radiochemistry laboratory has been built, a building for inactive chemical engineering, a central block for library, theoretical physics, engineering and drawing offices, whilst buildings for the medical and health physics divisions and active chemical engineering are still under construction. For the rest of our work we have converted the old buildings of the airfield into laboratories— every one of these is in use—even the three navigational trainers and the underground fuel store. We have also built metallurgical and electronics laboratories in standard hutting. The scientific and technical staff of the Establishment has been built up round the scientists who worked on atomic energy in Canada, the United States and Britain during the war years. This staff came mainly from Universities, and this nucleus has given to the Establishment a character which is rather unusual in government establishments. To this war-time staff were added scientists who came from other government establishments when their staffs were reduced at the end of the war. We have also recruited staff through the standard machinery of the Civil Service Commission. We have now almost reached our equilibrium numbers and are satisfied that we have a staff capable of carrying out creative development work as well as contributing to basic scientific and technological knowledge.


The first half of the twentieth century was marked by the simultaneous development of logic and mathematics. Logic offered the necessary means to justify the foundations of mathematics and to solve the crisis that arose in mathematics in the early twentieth century. In European science in the late nineteenth century, the ideas of symbolic logic, based on the works of J. Bull, S. Jevons and continued by C. Pierce in the United States and E. Schroeder in Germany were getting popular. The works by G. Frege and B. Russell should be considered more progressive towards the development of mathematical logic. The perspective of mathematical logic in solving the crisis of mathematics in Ukraine was noticed by Professor of Mathematics of Novorossiysk (Odesa) University Ivan Vladislavovich Sleshynsky. Sleshynsky (1854 –1931) is a Doctor of Mathematical Sciences (1893), Professor (1898) of Novorossiysk (Odesa) University. After studying at the University for two years he was a Fellow at the Department of Mathematics of Novorossiysk University, defended his master’s thesis and was sent to a scientific internship in Berlin (1881–1882), where he listened to the lectures by K. Weierstrass, L. Kronecker, E. Kummer, G. Bruns. Under the direction of K. Weierstrass he prepared a doctoral dissertation for defense. He returned to his native university in 1882, and at the same time he was a teacher of mathematics in the seminary (1882–1886), Odesa high schools (1882–1892), and taught mathematics at the Odesa Higher Women’s Courses. Having considerable achievements in the field of mathematics, in particular, Pringsheim’s Theorem (1889) proved by Sleshinsky on the conditions of convergence of continuous fractions, I. Sleshynsky drew attention to a new direction of logical science. The most significant work for the development of national mathematical logic is the translation by I. Sleshynsky from the French language “Algebra of Logic” by L. Couturat (1909). Among the most famous students of I. Sleshynsky, who studied and worked at Novorossiysk University and influenced the development of mathematical logic, one should mention E. Bunitsky and S. Shatunovsky. The second period of scientific work of I. Sleshynsky is connected with Poland. In 1911 he was invited to teach mathematical disciplines at Jagiellonian University and focused on mathematical logic. I. Sleshynsky’s report “On Traditional Logic”, delivered at the meeting of the Philosophical Society in Krakow. He developed the common belief among mathematicians that logic was not necessary for mathematics. His own experience of teaching one of the most difficult topics in higher mathematics – differential calculus, pushed him to explore logic, since the requirement of perfect mathematical proof required this. In one of his further works of this period, he noted the promising development of mathematical logic and its importance for mathematics. He claimed that for the mathematics of future he needed a new logic, which he saw in the “Principles of Mathematics” by A. Whitehead and B. Russell. Works on mathematical logic by I. Sleszynski prompted many of his students in Poland to undertake in-depth studies in this field, including T. Kotarbiński, S. Jaśkowski, V. Boreyko, and S. Zaremba. Thanks to S. Zaremba, I. Sleshynsky managed to complete the long-planned concept, a two-volume work “Theory of Proof” (1925–1929), the basis of which were lectures of Professor. The crisis period in mathematics of the early twentieth century, marked by the search for greater clarity in the very foundations of mathematical reasoning, led to the transition from the study of mathematical objects to the study of structures. The most successful means of doing this were proposed by mathematical logic. Thanks to Professor I. Sleshynsky, who succeeded in making Novorossiysk (Odesa) University a center of popularization of mathematical logic in the beginning of the twentieth century the ideas of mathematical logic in scientific environment became more popular. However, historical events prevented the ideas of mathematical logic in the domestic scientific space from the further development.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Linlin Liu ◽  
Jianfei Yu ◽  
Junming Huang ◽  
Feng Xia ◽  
Tao Jia

Modern science is dominated by scientific productions from teams. A recent finding shows that teams of both large and small sizes are essential in research, prompting us to analyze the extent to which a country’s scientific work is carried out by big or small teams. Here, using over 26 million publications from Web of Science, we find that China’s research output is more dominated by big teams than the rest of the world, which is particularly the case in fields of natural science. Despite the global trend that more papers are written by big teams, China’s drop in small team output is much steeper. As teams in China shift from small to large size, the team diversity that is essential for innovative work does not increase as much as that in other countries. Using the national average as the baseline, we find that the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) supports fewer small teams than the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the United States does, implying that big teams are preferred by grant agencies in China. Our finding provides new insights into the concern of originality and innovation in China, which indicates a need to balance small and big teams.


2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 135-149
Author(s):  
Wojciech Łysek

The article discusses the life and work of the outstanding Sovietologist Richard Pipes, who was born in a Polonized Jewish family in Polish Cieszyn. After an adventurous trip to the United States in 1939 and 1940, he graduated in history from Harvard University and devoted himself to scientific work. For the next half a century, Pipes dealt with the historical and contemporary aspects of Russia. In his numerous publications, including more than 20 monographs, he emphasised that the Soviet Union continued rather than broke with the political practice of tsarist Russia. In his professional work, he thus contested views prevailing among American researchers and society. From the 1960s, Pipes was involved in political activities. He was sceptical about détente, advocating more decisive actions towards the Soviet Union. Between 1981 and 1983, he was the director of the Department of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the National Security Council in the administration of President Ronald Reagan. Although retiring in 1996, he did not give up his scientific activity. Pipes died on 17 May 2018; according to his last will, his private book collection of 3,500 volumes has been donated to the Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document