Facts and Values

Scientist: The world doesn't need you philosophers anymore. Modern scientific man has no time to waste with you morally-obsessed people with your ridiculous and impractical questions. Furthermore, philosophers over the ages have never been able to come to any conclusive agreement as regards "the truth".I'll tell you why - because you all lack method. The scientific method has proven its infinite worth by demonstrating its ability to deliver concrete results; that's how we are able to drive cars and fly planes today. Because of science, honest citizens can no longer be deceived by religious or philosophical propaganda. They will no longer be conned into devoting their lives to imaginary causes whose premises cannot be proved conclusively.

Philosopher: So what exactly do you mean by "cannot be proved conclusively" ? And what is this "method" you speak of? I'm very curious...

Scientist: It's simple you idiot. The scientific method distinguishes between facts and values. Facts are natural empirical data which are immediately perceived by the human senses or with the aid of scientific instruments. Values entail a judgment of whether or not a certain thing is good or bad. The scientific method comes to solid conclusions based on examining facts only, and not getting mixed up in any arbitrary value judgment bullshit. People end up going to war because of a clash in values. Science however, is perfectly neutral, objective, and detached from any of this nonsense. The world should be that way.

Philsopher: Oh I see... But in that case, according to your own standards, why is science necessary in the first place? To choose the scientific method over other methods implies that it is "better", which in turn implies some conception of judging between "good" and "bad" methods right? If not, all methods would be equally usable.

Scientist: No, no, no, you got it all wrong! Science has proven to be much more effective at helping mankind achieve any given ends as compared to any other method, that's why its so useful!

Philosopher: Oh I see... so you're saying that achieving our ends is better than not achieving our ends right? But if we were to be thoroughly scientific, we couldn't possibly judge whether or not we should achieve our ends, since it forces us to make a value judgment. In that case science would not be absolutely necessary. Even worse, science cannot possibly inform us which ends to choose, but can help us achieve both good and evil causes with equal efficiency. It's like comparing the car with the atomic bomb.

Scientist: Hell no! Its unscientific man which came up with those ends! The scientific method was simply abused that's all.

Philosopher: Oh I see... so the scientific method is actually meant to be used for good causes, is that it?

Scientist: Crap, stop baiting me! Science is neutral you idiot, we are not involved in the stupid fight between good and evil.

Philosopher: Oh I see... Then what exactly is the motivation behind science? What is it that drives the scientist to do what he or she does?

Scientist: It's a completely neutral objective: a curiosity about the truth. We want to get past all the useless garbage of value judgments and get to the empirical truth!

Philosopher: Oh I see... but isn't it neither good nor bad to pursue the truth in that case? Why do scientists choose to pursue truth rather than, say, untruth?

Scientist: Okay look, I will qualify that science cannot prove that pursuing the truth is better than not doing so. We simply believe that pursuing the truth is good. I mean, get your shit straight pal, doesn't it just make simple sense?

Philosopher: Fool, I'm beginning to lose patience with you. Unfortunately, I am not as well trained as some of my other colleagues in the area of education. Even if you say that you simply believe that pursuing the truth is good, you cannot avoid distinguishing between good and bad pursuits. If you resist further, I will contend that you cannot say that it is wrong to have bad pursuits, such as lining your pocket with money obtained from selling your damned method to honest citizens! And if you agree with that, I will be sure to expose people like you who pretend to have knowledge which you do not!

Scientist: Asshole! You're just twisting my words around! Damn you philosophers!

Philosopher: My friend, any man who has to work doubly hard defending something which he claims can stand on its own needs to do some serious self reflecting. You forget that your discipline is the bastard child of philosophy. While science has been able to create air-conditioning and turbochargers, you scoff at philosophers for struggling to define justice. But ultimately science inherited its logical basis from the mathematics of philosophical logic. Science only invented the ridiculous distinction between facts and values in the hope of divorcing itself from philosophy and becoming a separate entity.

Scientist: But that's true! How can you define justice? There's absolutely no empirical material we can work with; there's no such thing.

Philospher: Just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it can't be found. That's a fallacious argument made by science. Human beings still feel a great need for justice; it is in fact the number one source of all discontentment on earth. As a philosopher, I will admit that a consistent and comprehensive explanation of good and evil has yet to be discovered. But I will most certainly not pretend that the search for one is unnecessary, and will most certainly never give up searching --- because it is self-evidently good. In the same way, I will say that it is good for human beings to be happy, although I cannot explain exactly why. Someday I hope to find out. You should too.

By the way, get yourself educated. Go read the first book of Plato's Republic. Your arguments have already been tackled by philosophy before you were even born.

Scientist: ...........

Adapted from the essay "What is Political Philosophy?", in
An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays by Leo Strauss (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989)