Section 2 — Science and Truth
Session 7 of 16
Monday, August 18, 2026
What science cannot answer
Science is extraordinarily powerful — but it has genuine limits. It can tell us what is, but not what ought to be. It can describe how the universe operates, but it cannot tell us whether life has meaning, whether an action is right or wrong, or what we should ultimately value. In this session we examine the boundary between empirical questions and normative ones, explore how different traditions draw that line, and develop the English language for talking about what lies outside the reach of scientific investigation — without dismissing science or inflating it into a complete worldview.
Vocabulary for this session
empiricalnormativemetaphysicsethicsjurisdiction
Grammar focus
Grammar focus: Marking the limits of knowledge — "Science can tell us X, but it cannot tell us Y." / "That is an empirical question; this is a normative one." / "The evidence is silent on whether..." / "This lies beyond what data alone can settle." These structures allow you to make a clear, confident claim about the scope of a type of knowledge — a skill essential for honest academic writing, policy discussion, and cross-disciplinary conversation.
Come prepared to discuss
"Can science tell us what is right and wrong — or only what is true and false? Is there a meaningful difference?"
Before this session
Prepare: Think of a major policy debate — environmental, medical, social, or economic — that involves both scientific questions and value questions. Come ready to separate the two: What part of the debate could be settled by better data? What part depends on values, priorities, or ethical judgments that no amount of data can resolve on its own?
Task-Based Activity
Empirical or Normative? Give students a list of ten contentious questions — "Should we eat less meat?", "Is capital punishment effective?", "Does God exist?", "Is immigration good for the economy?", "Is it wrong to lie?" — and ask them to classify each as primarily empirical, primarily normative, or genuinely both. Students compare classifications in pairs and must defend their reasoning. The goal is to expose how easily empirical and normative questions get conflated in public debate.
Career-Oriented Take — How to Frame It
One of the most common communication failures in professional environments is treating a value judgment as if it were a factual finding. "The data shows we should do X" usually obscures a normative premise — that a particular outcome matters more than another. Professionals who can clearly distinguish what the evidence says from what we should do as a result are more credible, more persuasive, and far less likely to talk past the people they are trying to convince.
Big Picture — Global Context
The confusion between empirical and normative claims is one of the central problems in modern public discourse. Climate scientists can tell us what the temperature will be; they cannot tell us how much we should sacrifice today for the benefit of people a hundred years from now — that is a moral and political question. Understanding where science stops and values begin does not weaken science. It clarifies what science can genuinely settle and protects it from being misused as a political weapon by any side.
Homework (assign after session)
Choose a public debate you follow — political, environmental, medical, or social. Write 150 words identifying the empirical questions (what the data shows) and the normative questions (what we should value or prioritize) embedded in that debate. Use the boundary-marking structures from today: "The evidence can tell us... but it cannot tell us..."