Science and Religion

Science, in this direction, can come to be an efficient way of control of the interpretations, that of one it forms or another one subjazem to the lesser gesture and action of the men. The capacity and necessity of all man to act significantly make possible that ' ' sentido' ' ' ' sentidos' ' of a phenomenon, of a culture, an event, an action, they are transformed into object of study, scientific and analytical also. Moreover, it still places one another question: the action of the scientist when making science, as well as all its conclusions, carries interpretativos elements (the specific difference of science inhabits how much to its ways and capacity of control of the contingency). This type of reflection is turned against the cientificismo of century XIX, the spite of Weber to be same at the beginning enters the enthusiastic greaters of the science of century XX, scientist even so gotten passionate, Weber did not share with the century that it it formed the ways that constituam practical the scientific one. To it, science could not come to changed itself into a new goal-value that co-ordinates and unifies the culture, as long ago it was the religion, for example.

A quarrel deepened on the question of the values does not fit here. For the time being, it is enough in them to evidence that, for Weber, all interpretation, either it of any object, phenomenon, historical event, culture, action, etc., as much how much interpretations that guide our action even though (without, necessarily, let us be cnscios of them) and the interpretation of proper I in its relation with the world, constitute a direction, that can, in turn, reverse speed-to be interpreted by the scientist, for the historian. The problem of the historical direction all covered the circle of intellectuals with which Weber argued and if it related. .