Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Political Science?

06:54 / 11.10.05

I'm trying to understand Political Science. I didn't take the class in school, no. I thought it was some kind of joke. Is there anything less political than science? Is there anything less scientific than politics? I was wondering if someone could explain this oh-so-basic course to me, and how these two terms were able to be used together for such an educational basic. Maybe the meanings of these terms are altered to suit the course material? I simply don't understand the connection.

Can anyone prove that politics go outside the world of perception/opinion/non-scientific matter? I mean, anyone can say that forms of thought are- well- science, but they end up entering a world of subjective terminology. I wanna see the real thing here.

I don't think there is a science behind politics, and I challenge anyone in this room to prove otherwise. It's science. That means we need proof.

How are political viewpoints and/or actions in any way-shape-or-form science?

07:37 / 11.10.05

I suppose because politics is still a causal, empirical system (even if it isn't quite as rigorously stimulus-response as a "pure" science).

lord henry strikes back

08:01 / 11.10.05

To briefly address your first point:

Is there anything less political than science?

Well, yes. Most things. Just look at the history behind this years winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology. However, I don't really think this was your question so I'll leave it there.

Poltitcs can definately be studied using certain scientific approaches. At the most basic level a lot of politics is economics, and economics is a very precise field. If the price goes down the demand goes up, basic economic principle. By extention, all other things being equal, given a choice of two parties with essentially the same polices, the one that promices to lower taxes (the most) will win.

Of course the above is a very crude example, as all other things are never equal. However, the study of why they are not, party loyalty for example, can actually be done to high level of accuracy and produce results that are not only descriptive but predictive. Sorry, I'm not explaining myself too well, and I'm a bit pushed for time, but one of the main things that I took from studying politics is that, en mass, people actually behave in a surprisingly predictable manner.

22:09 / 12.10.05

I suppose because politics is still a causal, empirical system (even if it isn't quite as rigorously stimulus-response as a "pure" science).

The thing is, science is supposed to be able to make predictions. Political science would presumably be interested in making predictions avout politics and having those predictions be accurate; however, having worked in government, I can confidently say that it's basically a chaotic system and that making reliable predictions is basically impossible because you can never know enough of the variables.

"Political Philosophy" would perhaps be a better term.

22:32 / 14.10.05

Are you teliing me that the main (well funded?) political parties don't have any kind of computer based system for predicting the will of the people based on entered 'political variables'? Surely this sort of thing's been around since the 80's? (based on previous cause & effect this is %proof of x shit happening again.

damn sorry forgot my point these

20:29 / 20.10.05

Scientific endeavour does not need physical proof; look at the world of quantum physics: String theory and the likes. To suggest that science in its purest form can prove itself through realization of its methods is fallacy. Indeed science proves itself in a simplistic level. As you get to the more complicated and perplexing aspects of physical science you reach a quagmire in having a unified answer.

This is true of human beings, we are the most complicated phenomena known to science, in terms of our behaviour and action. Political science endeavours to answer the complicated nature of human action, in the same way quantum theory tries to explain the existence of the universe. Every political philosopher ever has tried to sweep generally the idea of existence, and how to control / sustain it. Obviously none of those have been correct, which explains our current situation.

The poster above me who suggests that a “political philosophy” is better descriptor of political science is right, in one way; in that philosophy is what underlies politics. Though wrong in another way. Since politics includes aspects of social science (ponder this in the same way if you will) these sciences try to predict mass behavioural patterns and human action en masse. I personally believe psychology, politics, sociology and economics make up what we know to be political science. I see politics feeding from these fields to quench the ultimate questions of human action.

As is the case with physics, mathematics and astronomy feeding into what we know as cosmology.