That's a normative question, not an empirical one.categorical phrase
Use when: distinguishing a question about what ought to be from a question about what is
Empirical questions ask about facts — what is the case, what causes what, what the data shows. Normative questions ask about values — what should be the case, what is good, what we ought to do. Science is a powerful tool for the former; it cannot, by itself, answer the latter. Naming this distinction is foundational to clear thinking about science's reach.
"Whether a longer life is always a better life is a normative question, not an empirical one — medicine can extend life, but it can't tell us whether every extension is worth having."
Science can tell us the what and the how — not always the why or the whether.boundary-marking phrase
Use when: articulating the limits of the scientific method in a memorable, non-dismissive way
"What" and "how" questions — what exists, how things work, how variables relate — are science's domain. "Why" in the sense of purpose or meaning, and "whether" in the sense of moral permissibility, require frameworks that science does not supply. Saying this clearly is not anti-science; it is an honest account of what science is for.
"Science can tell us how the brain processes grief — but it can't tell us why grief matters, or whether a drug that eliminates it would be a good thing. Those are different questions."
The is-ought gap is real.philosophical phrase
Use when: pointing out that factual findings do not by themselves generate moral conclusions
David Hume identified a logical gap between statements of fact ("is") and statements of value ("ought"). No amount of factual description automatically tells us what we should do — moving from one to the other requires an explicit value premise. Naming this gap prevents the common error of treating scientific findings as if they carry direct moral implications.
"Even if we accept all the neuroscience about decision-making, the is-ought gap is real — knowing how choices are made doesn't settle whether people should be held responsible for them."
Questions of meaning aren't answered by more data.grounding phrase
Use when: gently pushing back on the assumption that science can resolve existential or philosophical questions
Why am I here? Does my life matter? What should I care about? These questions occupy philosophy, religion, literature, and private reflection precisely because they are not answered by accumulating more information. Recognizing that is not anti-intellectual — it is an accurate account of what kind of questions these are.
"I have all the facts about what's happening in my body when I feel love — but questions of meaning aren't answered by more data. The experience of love as meaningful belongs to a different conversation."
That's a question for ethics, not just science.redirecting phrase
Use when: flagging that a decision requires moral reasoning alongside or beyond empirical evidence
Many of the most pressing decisions in medicine, technology, and public policy involve both factual and ethical dimensions. The facts are necessary but not sufficient. When someone treats a practical or policy question as purely scientific, this phrase signals that the ethical dimension deserves its own serious attention.
"Whether we can edit the human germline is a scientific question — but whether we should is a question for ethics, not just science. Both conversations need to happen."
Scientism is the overreach — not science itself.clarifying distinction
Use when: criticizing the philosophical claim that science can answer all meaningful questions, without criticizing science
"Scientism" is the view that the scientific method is the only valid path to knowledge or meaning — that everything worth knowing is, in principle, scientifically knowable. This is a philosophical position, and a controversial one, not an implication of science itself. Naming the difference defends science from misuse without diminishing it.
"I'm not criticizing science — I'm criticizing scientism. The claim that science can answer every important question is a philosophical overreach, not a scientific finding."
Reasonable people can agree on the facts and still disagree about what to do.consensus-building phrase
Use when: preventing a factual agreement from being mistaken for a policy or values agreement
Accepting the same scientific findings does not commit people to the same policy conclusions, because policy involves trade-offs, priorities, and values that go beyond the data. Recognizing this prevents false arguments and keeps both the scientific and the ethical discussions honest and distinct.
"We both accept the climate projections — reasonable people can do that and still disagree profoundly about what to do, because the policy question involves values, trade-offs, and timelines that science alone doesn't settle."
Some of the most important questions are the ones science wasn't designed to answer.orienting phrase
Use when: affirming the value of non-scientific inquiry — philosophy, art, religion, ethics — without diminishing science
What is a good life? Is beauty real? Do I have duties to people I will never meet? How should I face death? These questions have occupied humanity's greatest thinkers for millennia — through philosophy, theology, literature, and art. Acknowledging that science was not designed to answer them is a mark of intellectual maturity, not anti-scientific sentiment.
"Some of the most important questions — what makes a life worth living, how we should treat each other, what we owe to the past and the future — are the ones science wasn't designed to answer. That's not a failure; it's just what they are."