Bacon and Weber insist on a separation between the sphere of science proper and those of ethics, religion, morals, and values. Bacon states that in becoming a scientist, there is a lack of challenging norms.[1] Normative knowledge is, therefore, necessary to distinguish between other knowledge and an overlap would corrupt moral understandings. Weber states science can contribute to technology, methods of thinking and to help gain clarity, however, science does not provide general knowledge or ultimate meaning.[2]  Technical means and calculations are valuable and then the questions “do they have any meanings that go beyond the purely practical and technical?”[3] Calculations and values cannot collide because in a way, ‘science’ falls short of understanding values. If the two forms of knowledge were to overlap, Weber would fear that science would be corrupted with political thought. Weber states that “the tension between the value-spheres of ‘science’ and the sphere of the ‘holy’ is unbridgeable.”[4] Due to the different types of questions that are asked for these two forms of thought, Weber argues that knowledge must be organized.

The benefits from this division include that of specialization. If there is specialization, people can become experts in a field and advocate for that field to the fullest extent. While it is useful for have a holistic view, that can be introduced through conversations among experts. Some view that ‘science’ is based on facts and normative knowledge is based on human interactions with themselves and the world around them. These thoughts are derived from two different experiences and therefore should be understood by their differences.

However, there must be a consideration of conceptual frameworks and the material under evaluation. I believe that in regards to the framework of my research, it requires the fluidity of the “open circle” rather than one divided. As someone who is (now) using the neo-positivist framework, I see a strong relationship with ‘science.’ For example, the language that is used (variables, hypothesis, etc.) has a strong connection to ‘science.’ By dividing the two worlds, normative research is not able to borrow from scientific methods. But in considering the actual evidence I would evaluate, I would have to take a few steps back in my research to question my assumptions. I would have to, in a way, follow Nietzsche, who believes that there is no divide and everything is up for interpretation, therefore, assumptions would not be possible.[5]

[1] Francis, Bacon. “Preface: The Great Renewal,” in Seminar 4 Readings, ed. Laura Field. American University. 2017. 7.

[2] Max, Weber. “Science as a Vocation,” in Seminar 5 Readings, ed. Laura Field. American University. 2017. 10

[3] Ibid, 4

[4] Ibid,11

[5] Friedrich, Nietzsche. “Beyond Good and Evil,” in Seminar 6 Readings, ed. Laura Field. American University. 2018. 5-9.
Bacon, Francis. “Preface: The Great Renewal,” in Seminar 4 Readings, ed. Laura Field. American University. 2018.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Beyond Good and Evil,” in Seminar 6 Readings, ed. Laura Field. American University. 2018.

Weber, Max. “Science as a Vocation,” in Seminar 5 Readings, ed. Laura Field. American University. 2018.