Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
biologists. For that move risks instrumentalizing the cultural sciences
(G
eisteswissenschaften
) rather than humanizing the life sciences.
What Is the Value of Science?
“To raise this question,” responds Weber, “is to ask for the vocation of
science within the total life of humanity.”
28
The value of science is quite
specific: to invent concepts and conduct rational experiments. These con-
cepts, however, no longer provide a window onto eternal verities or
essences, and the experiments no longer reveal God's truth. Furthermore,
they tell us nothing about the meaning of the cosmos, nature, or the
psyche. Weber heaps scorn on those who think otherwise. “And today?”
he scoffs, “Who—aside from certain big children who are indeed found
in the natural sciences—still believes that the findings of astronomy,
biology, physics, or chemistry could teach us anything about the
meaning
of the world?” Or, “After Nietzsche's devastating criticism of the 'last
men' who invented happiness, I leave aside altogether the naïve optimism
in which science—that is, the technique of mastering life which rests
upon science—has been celebrated as the way to happiness. Who believes
in this?—aside from a few big children in university chairs or editorial
offices.”
29
Or, “Natural science gives us an answer to the question of
what we must do if we wish to master life technically. It leaves quite
aside, or assumes for its purposes, whether we should or do wish to
master life technically and whether it makes ultimate sense to do so.”
30
Weber shares with Freud the view that science and its associated growth
of instrumental capacities was not the path to happiness. He differs from
Freud in refusing to believe that scientific truths yielded meaning. For
Weber, science alone could not yield meaning, especially about the
human condition. The only possible path toward that goal was
experience-yielding
phronesis
. Weber deeply desires to follow this path,
but despairs that he is making any progress in doing so.
For Weber, science contributes methods of thinking, the tools and the
training for disciplined thought. It contributes to gaining clarity. That is
all. Hence for Weber, science contributes to an ethics, a critical ethos of
“self-clarification and a sense of responsibility.” This sense of responsi-
bility turns on a specific conception of truth. Such an ethics is a form of
critique, in the Kantian sense of establishing where the limits of thought
