In Science as a Vocation, Weber makes several provocative points, deliberately c

In Science as a Vocation, Weber makes several provocative points, deliberately challenging his student audience in 1917. As prelude to class discussion, your task in this mini-assignment is to “test” Weber’s claims by thinking about them from your own vantage point. No additional reading is required, but do revisit Weber’s essay to include or respond to some of his reasons as you formulate your own view. One purpose of the exercise is to think a bit more critically about the issue of “relevance” we have repeatedly addressed. How “relevant” is theory, really?
Specifically, write a short paragraph about each of the following questions:
1.Most of the theorists we have read believe theory is very relevant because it also gives answers to moral or political questions and can point the way toward societal reform. Weber, by contrast, argues that science, and by implication social-science theory, cannot give us such answers and direction, for example because it cannot help us choose between inherently different values or answer the question, “How shall we live?” Who do you think is right, and why?
2.Most theorists we have read had their favorite causes—free trade, a positive polity, a communist revolution, moral education, a more racially equal or more open and democratic society, and so on. Weber addressed an audience thinking about scholarly support for nationalist or socialist causes. In his own public engagement, he was committed to strengthening Germany and reforming its authoritarian system. Today, still other causes have come to the fore. Previous theorists had high expectations for what science could do for them, Weber less so. As you think about one current cause that matters to you or to many other people, do you think sociology can meaningfully help to address it, and why (not)?
3. Though not all of the theorists we studied held academic positions, they broadly favored instructing their audience, including students, about what they should do and value. Weber, by contrast, argues that (college) teachers should refrain from such advocacy—specifically, that “politics has no place in the lecture room”—by sticking to factual analysis and clarification of choices, and that students should not look to professors as leaders or prophets. Who do you think is right, and why?
Length: one page, single-spaced,