Those familiar with How Superstition Won and Science Lost will understand that it was with some irony that I closed it for a second time as I landed in Chicago in April 2019. I was bound for the annual meeting of the American Association for the History of Medicine in Columbus, Ohio, the city where John Burnham had spent most of his career. My friend had been gone now for two years. Although he was fifty years my senior, I never regarded him as my mentor. He never treated me like a student. We were friends, perhaps good ones, but it was characteristic of our friendship that we rarely agreed. John Burnham was already a Full Professor at Ohio State in 1969. Befitting one situated in another epoch, Burnham, by today’s standards, had distinct, quixotic concerns. Fascinated in a conventional way by the Progressive Era’s cultural attitudes, he less conventionally adopted as correct that era’s elitist high regard of professions and experts. He was a convinced establishmentarian, a label only slightly at odds with what Nancy Tomes identifies as the “deeply conservative message” of How Superstition Won. Burnhamwas also an unrepentant functionalist, a position unfashionable these days but highly visible in How Superstition Won. He was a whig cast in the declinist mold, as well; Burnham’s declinism, observed by NadineWeidman, was a genuinely held worldview, one he acquired early and never revised. As if this all were not odd enough, Burnham’s ardent respect for psychoanalysis went beyond historical passion.Hewas writing a volume onFreudwhenhe passed away. As far as I could tell, he thought much in Freud’s writing truth. As this précis of his career and attitudes might suggest, Burnham was not influenced by those trends in the sociology of scientific knowledge that began emerging in the 1970s and that Michael Gordin finds missing in How Superstition Won. Sometime between 1967 and 1969 Burnham and June Fullmer at Ohio State University invited Thomas Kuhn to Columbus. I remember Burnham telling me that he’d been impressed by Kuhn’s book. Yet he cautioned: “this was before Kuhn was KUHN.” Marjorie Burnham recalled of that visit a pleasant dinner ending

中文翻译：

---

“事后看来，我认为我是对的”：约翰·C·伯纳姆 (John C. Burnham) 的最后一句话，由骗子讲述

那些熟悉迷信如何赢得和科学失落的人会明白，当我于 2019 年 4 月登陆芝加哥时，我第二次关闭它有点讽刺。我是为了参加美国医学史协会的年会在俄亥俄州哥伦布市，约翰·伯纳姆 (John Burnham) 度过了大部分职业生涯的城市。我的朋友已经离开两年了。虽然他比我大我五十岁，但我从来没有把他当作我的导师。他从来没有把我当学生。我们是朋友，也许是好朋友，但我们很少同意这是我们友谊的特征。1969 年，约翰·伯纳姆 (John Burnham) 已经是俄亥俄州立大学的正教授。伯纳姆 (Burnham) 处于另一个时代，按照今天的标准，他有着明显的、不切实际的担忧。以传统的方式被进步时代的文化态度所吸引，他不太习惯地认为那个时代的精英对专业和专家的高度重视是正确的。他是一个坚定的建制主义者，这个标签与南希·托姆斯 (Nancy Tomes) 所说的“迷信如何获胜”的“极其保守的信息”略有不同。伯纳姆也是一个顽固的功能主义者，这个职位在当今不流行，但在《迷信如何赢得》中却非常明显。他也是衰落论者铸就的辉格党。纳丁·魏德曼 (NadineWeidman) 观察到伯纳姆的衰落是一种真正持有的世界观，他很早就获得了这种世界观，而且从未修改过。似乎这一切都还不够奇怪，伯纳姆对精神分析的热烈尊重超出了历史的热情。他去世时正在写一本关于弗洛伊德的书。据我所知，他对弗洛伊德的写作真理思考了很多。正如他职业生涯和态度的简述所暗示的那样，伯纳姆并没有受到 1970 年代开始出现的科学知识社会学趋势的影响，而迈克尔·戈丁在《迷信如何获胜》中发现了这些趋势。1967 年至 1969 年的某个时候，俄亥俄州立大学的伯纳姆和琼·富尔默邀请托马斯·库恩到哥伦布。我记得伯纳姆告诉我他对库恩的书印象深刻。然而他警告说：“这是在库恩成为库恩之前。” 玛乔丽·伯纳姆 (Marjorie Burnham) 回忆了那次访问的愉快晚餐结局 “这是在库恩成为库恩之前。” 玛乔丽·伯纳姆 (Marjorie Burnham) 回忆了那次访问的愉快晚餐结局 “这是在库恩成为库恩之前。” 玛乔丽·伯纳姆回忆那次访问愉快的晚餐结束