Bacon and Weber maintain that there must be a division between the sciences — what we can “know” as “facts” — and questions of morality — what we can only make opinions about. In this line of reasoning, Weber argues that “the prophet and the demagogue do not belong on the academic platform.”(1) Essentially, since there are things that we can know for certain (by using science) and things that we cannot (such as irreconcilable ideological or religious struggles), we need to ensure that people — whether it is “the prophet” or the demagogue” or the techno-fascists — do not claim scientific-level legitimacy for non-scientific ends.(2) Perhaps Bacon is not as convinced that science cannot get to those ideological or religious “gods” (as Weber calls them), but he insists that a division is necessary to keep the relentless march of scientific progress from trampling and coming into conflict with religious traditions.(3)
It is true and a valid point that following Weber’s model for the fact-value divide to its logical conclusion carries worrying ramifications. For instance, how can one engage in political arguments and support one’s values and opinions using facts if the fact-value distinction is really as salient as Weber makes out? However, the distinction may seem arbitrary in its placement, but it does, in fact, serve an organizational service. Preventing social scientists from engaging in philosophical speculation and philosophers from empirical research acts as a “division of mental labor” since people wishing to do social science research probably do not want to grapple at length with the philosophies that motivate them as researchers and the philosophical implications of their research. Or perhaps some would like to make a “philosophy section” of research papers, but it would probably ultimately distract from the purpose of the paper and force the researcher into an unfamiliar field. Thus the fact-value or empirical-normative divide lends purpose and focus to the social sciences by strapping on a kind of blinders to the philosophical world. If I were to break down the barrier between facts and values for my project, I would probably spend a large period of time analyzing my ideological motivations at the beginning and then analyzing the ideological ramifications at the end. More likely though, I would completely redesign my project in a way to straddle the now nonexistent divide. Perhaps I could find some way to empirically investigate how liberalism and democracy might be implemented in China.
(1) Sem. 5 reading, p. 8.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Francis Bacon. “The New Organon.” The New Organon: 1-238; Sem. 5 reading, p. 12.