This study uses approaches from science studies and the sociology of culture to examine discourses on science in the 19th century Ottoman Empire. Analyzing official documents, literature, textbooks, and the press, it reconstructs the often heated Ottoman debates regarding science and traces their transformations. I argue that Muslim Ottomans' discussions on the sciences that were being imported from Europe were inseparable from concerns regarding social order. The Ottoman debate was less about the meaning of science than about how a proper man of science should be at a time of increasing European influence perceived by many Muslim Ottomans as detrimental to their status. To make this argument, I examine the cultural transformations that set the boundaries of boundary work about the category of science; with particular attention to the impact of official cultural maps; that were promoted and the challenges they received. I show that the initial promoters of the new sciences were predominantly bureaucrats who had been educated and/or employed in Europe. To legitimate their authority, they defined themselves as the knowing class, and identified scientific knowledge with knowledge as such. Due to the traditional moral connotations of knowledgeability and ignorance this portrayal formed a connection between scientific knowledge and virtue. The new elites also argued that scientific knowledge would lead subjects to appreciate their state, rendering them obedient. The alternative discourse was developed by reformists who introduced religious references, and argued that the prestige of traditional Islamic sciences should be restored. But their arguments were always about moral values as well. They challenged the association between the new knowledge and virtue, and portrayed the new elite as fops who parroted Europeans. That new knowledge alone could not make one virtuous became the official viewpoint in the 1880s when students familiar with science were defined as confused men whose ignorance of Islam led them to be disobedient. Thus, science and morality could never be discussed separately and the idea of the autonomy of science remained insignificant. The ideal man of science was defined as one who constantly proved that he was loyal to the state and the people.