This paper compares Weber’s argument in “Science as a vocation,” with Physicist Alvin Weinberg’s discussion of the distinction between science and “trans-science,” as two contrasting blueprints for boundary-work. It argues that Weber’s empirical reasons for separating the scientific discussion of means and the extra-scientific discussion of ends – namely, the thesis of “disenchantment” – no longer serves as a useful approach to understanding the growth of “trans-science” or “expertise” over the last century. It advances an understanding of the latter as an intermediary sphere wherein facts and values, means and ends, are necessarily entangled because expertise is crucial to the production of legitimacy in liberal-democratic societies. The paper concludes by asking what is the responsibility of the scientist as trans-scientist or expert and what institutions would best embody and support this vocation.

中文翻译：

---

超科学作为一种职业

本文将韦伯在“科学作为一种职业”中的论点与物理学家阿尔文·温伯格关于科学与“超科学”之间区别的讨论进行比较，作为边界工作的两个对比蓝图。它认为，韦伯将手段的科学讨论和目的的超科学讨论分开的经验理由——即“祛魅”的论点——不再是理解“超科学”或“超科学”发展的有用方法。专业知识”在上个世纪。它将后者理解为一个中介领域，其中事实和价值、手段和目的必然纠缠在一起，因为专业知识对于自由民主社会中的合法性生产至关重要。