Soci 50

June 2, 1998

Notes on "Science as a Vocation"

Both science and art depend on:

inspiration and
devotion

HOWEVER, Science, unlike art, is chained to the art of progress. Thus, all scientific work is doomed to be antiquated in 20 or 50 years. This is just the nature of science.

it is hooked into a notion of ad infinitum progress

Weber thus asks, "Why engage in something that in reality never comes and never can come to an end?"

one potential answer, practitioner's say, is "science for science's sake."

But why, if all practical outcomes are destined to be outdated?

What does the intellectual rationalization that comes from science mean practically?

Weber argues that we don't know more than primitive folks - we have no increased and general knowledge of the conditions under which we live.

The difference, though, is we could learn these things at any time - there are no mysterious incalculable forces.

This means to Weber that the world is disenchanted. We can't fall back on magical means - this is what intellectualization means.

Weber then asks, "Do disenchantment and the "progress" of science have any meaning beyond the practical and the technical? Tolstoy - death has no meaning b/c always another step ahead for the march of progress.

Primitive man could become "satiated" with life, but modern humans can only become tired of life.

Life is never full, but provisional - thus death is meaningless (b/c of its "progressiveness").

Why serve progress, then? Or, alternatively, What is the value of science (for the total life of humanity)? Science, Weber argues, is no longer seen as the way to true being, true art, true nature, or true God.

Science is meaningless b/c it can't give an answer to the only question that matters, "What shall we do and how shall we live?"

Science is often seen as free from presuppositions. This, Weber argues, is also untrue.

It presupposes that the rules of logic and method are valid.

It presupposes that what it finds is "worth being known".

However, this presupposition cannot be proven by scientific means (but only interpreted with reference to its ultimate meaning, which we must reject or accept according to our ultimate position towards life. (143)

This is true of all scientific arenas.

And, this is why Weber argues that science should not enter the realm of personal value judgments (except to evaluate means towards a predetermined end).

The various value spheres of the world stand in irreconcilable conflict with each other (polytheism) - science cannot decide between them. (refer to in class notes).

What, then, should science do?

contribute to the technology of controlling life by calculating external objects and man's activities.
Give us methods of thinking - the tools and training for thought
Provide clarity

If you take some stand, then you must use these ends to reach it practically.

Ends may cause subsidiary consequences.

The means may cause you to reject the ends. Do the ends justify the means?

Science, Weber argues, cannot answer this question, but can only tell you that it must be answered.

Science also can help to ensure that a practical stand is derived with inner consistency - it can force the individual to give an account of the ultimate meaning of his conduct. (152)

Theology makes a claim to be a science.

it represents an intellectual rationalization of the possession of sacred values.
While, according to Weber, all sciences have presuppositions, theology adds a few specific presups.

presupposes that the world must have a meaning
certain "revelations" are facts relevant for salvation and must be believed in (154)

How can these presuppositions which must simply be accepted be meaningfully interpreted in a view of the universe?

For theology, these presups are beyond the limits of science.
Thus, the 'intellectual sacrifice' is the decisive characteristic of the positively religious man (because tension between the value spheres of science of the sphere of the holy is unbridgeable.

back to notes page