Augustus
…
A few years back a TED talk introduced me to the idea that science has values. I'd heard the "is/ought" claim before, but the notion of science having values was novel to me and mind blowing.
I find concepts like this problematic, and contributory towards scientism.
When someone says 'science has values' it is really making a positive claim, rather than the normative 'in theory, good science ought to have values'.
One of the preeminent causes of scientism is the failure to distinguish between the normative aims of science, and the real-world human activity of science with all the issues that go along with being a real-world human activity rather than a textbook concept.
The practice of science is significantly affected by irrationality, egotism, ambition, jealousy, careerism, greed, bias, ignorance, malpractice, fabrication, overconfidence, adherence to flawed methodologies, systemic distortions, etc. etc. simply because it is a human activity and these are human flaws.
Science is often discussed normatively in the manner a religious apologist discusses their faith normatively so as to absolve it of any connection to the problems it may cause in reality.
Treating science hagiographic manner does no one any favours, and this often happens when people ascribe values to science (and thus scientists and their output).