There are several reasons that both Bacon and Weber insist on a sharp division between the realm of the sciences and that of morality. In Bacon’s case, part of this insistence appears to spring from religious principles or a desire not to upset the religious authorities. He is quite explicit in claiming that moral knowledge in revelatory in nature and that humans should not attempt to apply worldly methodologies, such as science, to the investigation of morality.[1] He illustrates this neatly with a discussion of the Biblical story of Adam and the difference between Adam naming all the creatures God had created and Adam eating of the apple to learn knowledge of good and evil. Meanwhile, there are two important reasons Weber gives for supporting a division between science and morality. Firstly, Weber does not believe that the scientists be of trumpeting their moral and political beliefs as it will undermine their integrity writing “the prophet and the demagogue do not belong on an academic platform.”[2] Secondly, Weber points out that science is fundamentally about progress while that’s really not the case with value laden disciplines concerned with fulfillment like art and, by extension, morality.[3] Therefore, applying the metrics of one in an attempt to examine the other is fundamentally inappropriate and counterproductive.
One advantage of insisting on a divide between the realm of science and the realm of morality is that we, as social scientists, avoid the accusation of seeking to establish some sort of elitist rule where scientists occupy the role of philosopher-king. This division also stops the sciences from actually being co-opted by those who seek to implement their own preferred morality on society, like those techno-fascists that keep popping up in class. There are also benefits that accrue to both scientists and those who investigate morality in the form of specialization. It would be inefficient for scientists to extensively devote their time to moral questions and vice versa. I know that for my project it is certainly more efficient to accept some normative assumptions rather than expend a lot of energy and ink seeking to recreate these normative assumptions for myself. That is not to say that I should be unaware of my normative assumptions regarding liberal democracy or avoid critically analyzing these assumptions, but it is certainly helpful to reverify these assumptions with each foray into the realm of the social sciences.
[1] Francis Bacon, “The Great Renewal,” in The New Organon, 12.
[2] Max Weber, Science as a Vocation, 8.
[3] Ibid. 4.