At the California State Polytechnic University in San Luis Obispo, where I teach, the subjects traditionally defined as “science”—physics, chemistry, biology—make their institutional home in the College of Science and Mathematics. The history department, on the other hand, is housed in the College of Liberal Arts, alongside philosophy, English, psychology, and the umbrella “social sciences” of sociology, anthropology, and religious studies, to name a few. Why, one might ask, have these fields been organized this way? What exactly distinguishes science from the liberal arts? Meanwhile, within the College of Science and Mathematics, highly credentialed professors offer courses in astronomy and chemistry, but not astrology and alchemy. Why not? My students might respond that the answers are obvious: alchemy is not real science, of course, and whereas science is objective and empirical, the liberal arts are subjective and interpretive. But where did these distinctions originate? Who determines and maintains them? What, if anything, can the history of these categories tell us about the waxing and waning of scientific authority in the twentieth century?

中文翻译：

---

确定性商人：重新考虑科学可信度和声望

在我任教的加州州立理工大学圣路易斯奥比斯波分校，传统上被定义为“科学”的学科——物理、化学、生物学——的机构所在地是科学与数学学院。另一方面，历史系位于文学院，旁边还有哲学、英语、心理学以及社会学、人类学和宗教研究等“社会科学”。有人可能会问，为什么这些领域要这样组织？科学与文科到底有什么区别？与此同时，在科学与数学学院内，拥有高资质的教授提供天文学和化学课程，但不提供占星学和炼金术。为什么不？我的学生可能会回答说答案很明显：炼金术不是真实的当然，科学是客观的、经验性的，而文科则是主观的、解释性的。但这些区别从何而来？谁来决定和维护它们？这些类别的历史可以告诉我们什么关于二十世纪科学权威的兴衰？