Social Physics (funding issues)
Above is a visual gist of the Stewart-Weaver fallout, namely that in 1949 Warren Weaver, then chief decision maker of natural sciences funding for the Rockefeller Foundation, agreed to fund John Q. Stewart’s fledgling social physics program at Princeton University (see: Princeton social physics); four years later, however, after seeing exactly what this entails, namely that of employing one nature arguments (i.e. monism logic in contrast to dualism logic), e.g. making correlations between physical concepts, such as: thermal, electromagnetic, and chemical energy, etc., and social concepts, such as: human meaning, feeling, and authority, etc., backed out, and withdrew funding.
In hmolscience, Stewart-Weaver fallout refers to the 1949 fund initiated agreement by Rockefeller Foundation natural science head Warren Weaver to fund John Q. Stewart's social physics program at Princeton (see: Princeton Department of Social Physics) and then 1953 funding cancellation over objections to what exactly social physics entails.

In 1949, John Q. Stewart approached Warren Weaver, then head of the division of natural sciences of the Rockefeller Foundation, for funding to develop social physics as a proper social science. Weaver wrote back to Stewart: [1]

“I am completely sympathetic with your approach.”

Weaver offered Stewart a grant of $15,000 dollars (equivalent to $150,000 in 2015 terms).

Stewart, as summarized by Trevor Barnes (2014), used the money to mount seven conferences, as well as to help form in 1951 a Social Physics Committee of forty strong associated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and which produced its own bevy of special sessions. Stewart also increasingly adopted the language of “isomorphism” to describe the relationship between natural and social sciences.

Fallout | 1953
In Dec 1953, Stewart, in a paper presented at the Boston AAAS meeting, suggested that: [1]

Isomorphism means reliable item-to-item correspondence between two or more fields which superficially may seem altogether dissimilar. The fields are exhibited as more or less identical in their patterns of concepts.”

Stewart, sometime thereabouts, began to pen or present his “Remarks on the Current State of Social Physics”, given at an AAAS meeting paper, wherein Stewart he asserted isomorphisms between thermal, electromagnetic, and chemical energy and, respectively, human meaning, feeling, and authority, as well as an isomorphism between mechanical work (kinetic, elastic, and gravitational energy) and decision-making. [1]

Weaver, at this point, began to withdraw support for participation with Stewart, per arrival at the stated belief, as he told Stewart, that physical energy and theories could not be applicable to things such as feelings, meaning, values, decision making (which gets into questions of soul), etc.

In 1953, Weaver wrote to Stewart that he was going to cancel his social physics funding per the following logic: [2]

“To search for isomorphisms between social phenomena and physical phenomena is indeed an interesting idea. The real question, however, is whether or not it is a rewarding idea. It is interesting to suppose that there may be entities, social values, which play in social experience the same roles played by different forms of physical energy … But it is hard for me to sense how one can usefully assign quantitative measures to any significantly wide range of “values” in the social field. And when you link together such things as meaning, feeling, authority, and decision-making, this sounds to me like a very heterogeneous mixture.”

Of note, in regard to this withdrawal, the Rockefeller Foundation’s agenda, in the human sciences, as summarized by American historian Lily Kay (1996), in her chapter “Social Control: Rockefeller Foundation’s Agenda in the Human Sciences, 1913-1933”, spearheaded by the oil money of John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937), the wealthiest person in history (Ѻ), was anchored in and focused on promoting Protestant ethics. [3] Warren, moreover, was a theist; hence, the double-anchored objection.

Other | Examples
Similar examples of such reasoning can be found amid Florence Nightingale's late 19th century effort to get a "Chair of Social Physics" established at Oxford, the 1905 forced retirement of Wilhelm Ostwald per “religious questions” concerns related to his energetics-based monism philosophy teaches (see: Monistic Sunday Sermons); as well as explicitly stated in more recent fiascoes, such as: the Proxmire affair (1975), Rossini debate (2007), and the the Galem effect (2004), stated below:

“To suggest that humans could behave like atoms was looked upon as a blasphemy to both hard science and human complexity, a total nonsense, something to be condemned. And it has been indeed condemned during the last fifteen years.”
Serge Galam (2004), “Sociophysics: a Personal Testimony”

More recent examples include the Prausnitz-Thims derision (2013) (Ѻ), on the objection to having a chemical thermodynamics based two cultures department initiated at the University of California, Berkeley, per unstated reasons, such as that John Prausnitz believes that talents are "god given".

The spit itself, historically, dates back to the 1809 separation of people as either "admirers" and "enemies" of Goethe's physical chemistry based Elective Affinities, which before that dates to the atomic theory vs. standard model vs. being theory debates of the Greek philosophers (see: Heraclitus vs Parmenides debate)

1. (a) Stewart, John Q. (1953). “Remarks on the Current State of Social Physics” (pdf) (Isomorphism means, pg. 2; grant, pg. 8), Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference, Boston, Dec 30; in: Box 58, Miscellaneous Writing, John Q. Stewart Papers, Rare Books Special Collections, Princeton University.
(b) Barnes, Trevor J. and Wilson, Matthew W. (2014). “Big Data, Social Physics, and Spatial Analysis: the Early Years” (pre, pdf) (abs) (pdf), Big Data & Society, Apr-Jun:1-14.
2. Weaver, Warren. (1953). “Letter to John Q. Stewart”, Dec 22, in: Box 36, Weaver, W., John Q. Stewart Papers, Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University.
3. Kay, Lilly E. (1996). The Molecular vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of New Biology (§2: Social Control: Rockefeller Foundation’s Agenda in the Human Sciences, 1913-1933, pgs. 22-57). Oxford University Press.

TDics icon ns