80 SOCIAL SCIENTIST 17 Arthur S Goldberg, "Political Science as Science", in Nelson W Polsby et. ah (ed.), Politics and Social Life. Houghton Miff in Co, Boston 1964, pp 26-35. 18 Ibid, p 53. 19 Stephen Toulmin, Foresight and Understanding: An Enquiry into the Aims of Science University Press Bloomington, Indiana, 1961, p 59. 20 Indeed, the debate between facts and values has grown old by now. Sec, for a sample, the debate between William F Whyle, "A Challenge to Political Scientists** American Political Science Review Vol-XXXVII, August 1943, pp 692-697; and John H Hallowell, "Politics and Ethics", American Political Science Review, Vol. XXXVIII August 19H, pp 639-655. The debate faded out with most of the political scientists agreeing that a ^alue-free* social science could not possibly develop. For a critical review of the behavioural position, see Herbert J Storing (ed). Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics, Holt Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York 1962, and Bernard Crick, The American Science of Politics, University of California Press, Berkley 1959. 21 MOSibley, "The Limitations of Behaviouralism" in James C Charlesworth (ed), Contemporary Political Analysis, The Free Press, New York 1967, p 54. Also sec Marx Weber, op. cit., p 72. 23 Charles Taylor, "Neutrality in Political Science" in P Laslett and W G Runciman, Philosophy, Politics and Society, 3rd series Oxford Blackwell 1967 pp 25-57. SJ For a good summary of Max Weber's views, see Lewis A Coser (ed.), Masters of Sociological Thought, second edition, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,Inc. New York 1977 pp 219-221. 24 Max Weber, Basic Concepts in Sociology, The Citadel Press, New York, 1964, p 29. 28 Ernest Nagel (ed.), John Stuart Mill's Ph HosoRhy of Scientific Method, New York 1950 cited in Brecht, op. cit.. p 203. 96 Brecht, op, cit., p 482. w Ibi^, Chapter XII, Sections 3,5. »8 Ibid., p 237. 99 Ibid., pp 6-7.