Science vs. Ethics

While reading "Science as a Vocation," I enjoyed the points which Weber brought up. What I understood from a part if the reading is that Weber distinguishes a major difference between ethics and science. Because even though science science gives explanation and justifies a position, it still doesn't answer questions which people yearn to learn the answers of. For example, science doesn't justify the reason for keeping a certain position. It also doesn't answe philosophical questions such as: "What is life lived for?" or "What should be valued?" Now, I'm not saying that ethics does. But, every person has his or her own version of an ethics code. A set of ethical rules they follow. Those rules can be influenced by religion which is the opposite of science. What I'm trying to say is that I enjoy the clarification Weber gives his audience about science and ethics. When humanity developed science, they felt superior and invincible. They thought that from here on they would have answers gor everything. Even to philosophical questions. And when they realized that they couldn't, they decided to give up on everything (this is my mentality speaking, by the way). Weber distinguished the two and says that those two are different aspects o life that could never relate. Maybe thy could compliment each other, but never relate.
Another idea he brings up into my head is the idea of teachers not stating his or her personal view on something like politics in class. Since I'm still in high school, I'm often reminded of this. There have been many times when a teacher has been asked for his or her opinion by a peer of mine, but never a time when a teacher has actually answered. Their responses have always been along the lines of "I'm not here to state my opinion, I'm here to help you form your own."
I really enjoyed reading "Science as a Vocation" in which a lot of ideas trigger thought people don't usually come upon on a daily basis.