Philosophy Versus Science

[Belacqua]

either pursuit would make me less useful in certain ways.

The idea that it is good to be useful is of course a philosophical idea. 

"How should one live?" is among the oldest and most important topics in philosophy, and "one should be useful" is one  way that people have answered that question. Valuing usefulness over other things is a position that has a long history and genealogy. Some people have disagreed, of course, but I would never argue against it.

I'm sure you can see that it immediately raises another philosophical question. When we talk about "being useful," we always think in terms of "useful FOR something." A useful tool or useful knowledge facilitates some end. Therefore once one decides that it is good to be useful, the next question is "useful for what?" This, too, has been answered in many different ways, and has a long history and genealogy.

We can all probably agree that people who are useful in providing necessary medical care are doing a good thing, while people who are useful in maximizing insurance company profits by denying necessary medical care are not as good. 

Questions of values like "how should one live?" or "how should I spend the limited time I have on this earth?" are not questions that science can address. Ignoring questions like this, and denying their worth, increases the danger that people will not think carefully about the answers. 

I am not accusing you of being careless in your decision. I'm only saying that this is an important topic which science has no role in.

(AFTER a person has made a value choice -- e.g. "it would be good for me to cure diseases" -- then the methods one uses may well be informed by science. But the value choice itself is not a scientific choice.)