Coburn (R-OK) proposed an amendment to an NSF spending bill that would prohibt the National Science Foundation from giving out grants for studies in Political Science. Paraphrased his argument amounts to "It's not sciency enough." You can see the whole thing here:

 

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?...e5-846640c2c880

 

By far the best quote is the claim that FOX, CNN and MSNBC already doing the job Political Scientists are doing:

The largest award over the last 10 years under the political science program has been $5.4 million for the University of Michigan for the “American National Election Studies” grant. The grant is to “inform explanations of election outcomes.” The University of Michigan may have some interesting theories about recent elections, but Americans who have an interest in electoral politics can turn to CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, the print media, and a seemingly endless number of political commentators on the internet who pour over this data and provide a myriad of viewpoints to answer the same questions. There is no shortage of data or analysis in this field that would require the government to provide funding for additional analysis.

 

The amendment didn't make it, you can see the voting here:

 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00336

 

So, I pose this question to SoxTalk. Is Political Science a science?

Edited November 19, 200916 yr by DukeNukeEm

No.

I've read some interesting polisci articles, but for the most part, no. They try, though. BUt no.

Very yes.

Is mathematical science a science? Is computer science a science?

 

I tend to agree with the no it's not a science in the way chemistry, biology, geology etc are sciences.

Is mathematical science a science? Is computer science a science?

 

I tend to agree with the no it's not a science in the way chemistry, biology, geology etc are sciences.

I bet you wouldn't have included geology if I wasn't at this site

Both of OK's senators are kinda embarrassing. Anyway, that being said, political science is a legit academic discipline, not necessarily "science" per se but there's something to be said for it.

The science part of Political Science refers to the scientific method we all learned about in like 5th grade. Independent and dependent variables, hypothesis, etc. etc. PolSci uses the same method as other sciences, but instead of running experiments to prove the hypothesis we have to look at historical trends and causality. Science doesn't have to be limited to test-tubes or excavation.

 

The one difference I'm willing to acknowledge is PolSci doesn't have overwhelmingly supported theories like evolution for biology or gravity for physics. Ive heard it put as "there are no laws of political science." Not that I think that forbids PolSci from being counted as a scientific discipline.

 

I guess a good follow-up would be, is Political Science important? That probably was Coburn was getting at with this amendment.

Edited November 19, 200916 yr by DukeNukeEm

Yeah, I'd have to say it's pretty important. Hell, even mentioning that the media does a good job at it (which is a hilarious thing to say) concedes that point. How many of the analysts they bring in on the news have political science degrees?

The science part of Political Science refers to the scientific method we all learned about in like 5th grade. Independent and dependent variables, hypothesis, etc. etc. PolSci uses the same method as other sciences, but instead of running experiments to prove the hypothesis we have to look at historical trends and causality. Science doesn't have to be limited to test-tubes or excavation.

 

The one difference I'm willing to acknowledge is PolSci doesn't have overwhelmingly supported theories like evolution for biology or gravity for physics. Ive heard it put as "there are no laws of political science." Not that I think that forbids PolSci from being counted as a scientific discipline.

 

I guess a good follow-up would be, is Political Science important? That probably was Coburn was getting at with this amendment.

 

Well yes Poly Sci is an important field of study, but I still think it needs to be distinguished from the natural "sciences". One of my degrees is in Statistics & Actuarial Science, and we use lots of different tests and hypotheses with variables and constants etc...I still think it needs to be put into a different "field" however.

I have a view on this that's pretty unsubstantiated, but its the internet so whatever.

 

Democracies lend everyone an equal say in policy regardless of education, socio-economic class etc. This equal say kind of gives people a sense of ownership of their views on issues. Let's say you were having a discussion on medicine with a group of people and one person was a doctor. The doctor's views naturally hold more water because compared to him everyone else is merely laymen. Even religion appeals to expertise, people listen to and respect a priest's analysis of the bible. Politics operates differently though, people have a stance and they are convinced they are right. If a political scientist walks into a discussion on terrorism and disagrees with somebody they'll be a lot more combative than they would if a doctor disagreed with them regarding medicine. I dont know if this is emotional or what, but politics is one of those fields where people are always agitated when someone contradicts them.

Edited November 19, 200916 yr by DukeNukeEm

I have a view on this that's pretty unsubstantiated, but its the internet so whatever.

 

Democracies lend everyone an equal say in policy regardless of education, socio-economic class etc. This equal say kind of gives people a sense of ownership of their views on issues. Let's say you were having a discussion on medicine with a group of people and one person was a doctor. The doctor's views naturally hold more water because compared to him everyone else is merely laymen. Even religion appeals to expertise, people listen to and respect a priest's analysis of the bible. Politics operates differently though, people have a stance and they are convinced they are right. If a political scientist walks into a discussion on terrorism and disagrees with somebody they'll be a lot more combative than they would if a doctor disagreed with them regarding medicine. I dont know if this is emotional or what, but politics is one of those fields where people are always agitated when someone contradicts them.

I think you started going where I normally go with this but didn't go as far as I usually do. In America today, if enough people believe something and/or move enough units, any opinion is valid enough to be put up against another opinion. Expertise really isn't valued and some people openly mock it. So you could have, say, Balta, who I'd say qualify as an expert geologist, arguing with a random conservative economist who wrote a book saying climate change is bulls***. And their opinions are given equal relevance. So it doesn't matter if it's a political scientist or not. People are just combative about whatever they believe/were sold.

Well yes Poly Sci is an important field of study, but I still think it needs to be distinguished from the natural "sciences". One of my degrees is in Statistics & Actuarial Science, and we use lots of different tests and hypotheses with variables and constants etc...I still think it needs to be put into a different "field" however.

How many degrees do you have?

I think you started going where I normally go with this but didn't go as far as I usually do. In America today, if enough people believe something and/or move enough units, any opinion is valid enough to be put up against another opinion. Expertise really isn't valued and some people openly mock it. So you could have, say, Balta, who I'd say qualify as an expert geologist, arguing with a random conservative economist who wrote a book saying climate change is bulls***. And their opinions are given equal relevance. So it doesn't matter if it's a political scientist or not. People are just combative about whatever they believe/were sold.

Often though people will appeal to a different expert geoglist or climatologist who coincides with their opinion. This isn't really an exciting debate to watch or be a part of, but its a fairly effective strategy. Of course the issue of global warming is as much political as it is geologic the way people argue it.

It is a science in the same sense that philosophy is or isn't a science.

Political Science is often referred to as a soft science as opposed to a "hard science" like geology, biology, etc. There are plenty of quantitative studies in it that tend to try to stiffen up the soft science.

How many degrees do you have?

 

I also have a History degree (with a focus on Medieval Europe) so if I ever decide I want to become a teacher later on in life I can just go and do 1 year in a master's certification program.

 

I also have 2 minors.

 

I had a ton of AP credits from high school so I essentially walked in as Sophomore but I took 5 years anyways. Actually wasn't that bad.

Edited November 19, 200916 yr by ChiSox_Sonix

Often though people will appeal to a different expert geoglist or climatologist who coincides with their opinion. This isn't really an exciting debate to watch or be a part of, but its a fairly effective strategy. Of course the issue of global warming is as much political as it is geologic the way people argue it.

You can apply the same to any political argument, except maybe abortion and gay marriage since those are opinion-based.

 

Stem cell research

Terrorism

War

Any high-profile legal case

 

etc.

Edited November 19, 200916 yr by lostfan

It is a science in the same sense that philosophy is or isn't a science.

That depends a lot. I've only really read Greek philosophy and Marx very seriously, but Aristotelean philosophy is a lot more scientific than Platonism and Thucydides. Philosophy is kind of a mixed bag because its so broad.

 

Err. I thought you meant Philosophy wasn't a science. Nvm.

Edited November 19, 200916 yr by DukeNukeEm

I also have a History degree (with a focus on Medieval Europe) so if I ever decide I want to become a teacher later on in life I can just go and do 1 year in a master's certification program.

I was gonna get another Bachelor's but I figured what's the point in that, if I can just get another M.A. after I get the first one, whenever that is.

You can apply the same to any political argument, except maybe abortion and gay marriage since those are opinion-based.

 

Stem cell research

Terrorism

War

Any high-profile legal case

 

etc.

I'm not so sure about terrorism or war. Sure you have people who are or just were in the military used as experts a lot, but I'm not sure if that's for political or strategic purposes.

I was gonna get another Bachelor's but I figured what's the point in that, if I can just get another M.A. after I get the first one, whenever that is.

 

It also justified to my parents why I was staying a 5th year haha

I'm not so sure about terrorism or war. Sure you have people who are or just were in the military used as experts a lot, but I'm not sure if that's for political or strategic purposes.

Generally speaking you have people that know nothing about foreign policy or international politics chiming in and people take them seriously. Even though they have no credibility whatsoever and have been manifestly wrong multiple times. One thing that can be said for them is that they're consistent.

i think its dangerous to ever consider what a republican defines as science.

Political Science is not a science.

 

I have a political science degree, I in no way, shape or form believe that I am a "scientist".