44 ms·

I'm sorry; I shouldn't have written that. I'm sure you're a very smart person who is probably doing some fascinating work that I would totally dig if I knew abo

I'm sorry; I shouldn't have written that. I'm sure you're a very smart person who is probably doing some fascinating work that I would totally dig if I knew about it. It is just that I see a lot of really basic political science ignorance around me, and it grates after a while. I mean, I'm sure you would never write something like "I think hand-washing causes AIDS!" because even if you didn't understand any biology, you probably get that there's a field called biology and that claims about biology really shouldn't be made unless one has some familiarity with the field and has spent some time studying, etc. It really bothers me that in the US at least, all of the media institutions that cover politics and policy literally act like the field of political science doesn't exist. And so everyone just makes up crap about questions that experts have actually studied empirically. But that's not your fault and I shouldn't have let my frustration with the ignorance of large powerful organizations leak cause me to express displeasure with you. Again, my apologies.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Don't want to beat a dead horse, but you said something that interested me. I know several Political Science majors. Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics? Because from what you've said, you seem to feel that certain issues are settled. Or do you view it more like sociology, where there are competing theories and hard science is difficult (if not impossible) to perform? It sounds like you were saying that it should be treated as a hard science, but that can't be right, can it?
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics? Some days, I don't even view physics as a hard science ;-) More to the point, I think lots of political science involves open questions where people argue and there is no clear obvious answer. But that's the nature of any field: people don't argue over the obvious correct empirical stuff after a while. The issue is that the small fraction of political science that everyone agrees has been empirically settled are completely at odds with how Americans and American media discuss politics. I'm not saying that everyone should do whatever poli scientists say -- I'm saying that everyone should agree to the poly sci consensus on the few issues that have been well studied for which a huge consensus exists. That change alone would force us to rewrite 95% of political media coverage. Here's one example: http://www.slate.com/id/2256068/ http://www.slate.com/id/2256068/
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    You'll have to forgive me, but I expect you to earn your chops. Coming into a thread and announcing that you're so sorry folks are uninformed isn't a very good way to get started in a discussion. And over several posts, I've yet to see a single theory expounded and supported, although you've made mention of a prominent book and fallen back on consensus. I'm not trying to "bust your chops" or trash you or anything. It's just very difficult to have a conversation when there is no point to be argued aside from "people mostly don't understand political science like they should" which could apply to any one of a hundred sciences. I hope that came out well. I'm really not trying to sound snide. I just have no idea where you are going with this aside from posturing. It's perplexing. I'm done here. Don't want to waste other folk's time (or mine) Thank you for your time. Look forward to continuing the discussion at a future date. Sounds like you've read and studied quite a bit. Would love to see you show off some of that knowledge. At another time.
- evgen 16y ago
  It is worth noting that "political science" covers a lot of ground... Much like economics, there are some sub-fields that deal with "small" questions with a great deal of empirical rigor and and other sub-fields that are more theoretical and philosophical. The closer the sub-field is to stats & neuro-physio/psychology the more it resembles other hard sciences. The past decade has seen a lot of interesting work in this area and a lot of it has turned out to be something of a surprise in terms of deflating the "rational actors making reasoned choices" myths that many people subscribe to.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Don't want to beat a dead horse, but you said something that interested me. I know several Political Science majors. Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics? Because from what you've said, you seem to feel that certain issues are settled. Or do you view it more like sociology, where there are competing theories and hard science is difficult (if not impossible) to perform? It sounds like you were saying that it should be treated as a hard science, but that can't be right, can it?

MichaelSalib 16y ago
Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics? Some days, I don't even view physics as a hard science ;-) More to the point, I think lots of political science involves open questions where people argue and there is no clear obvious answer. But that's the nature of any field: people don't argue over the obvious correct empirical stuff after a while. The issue is that the small fraction of political science that everyone agrees has been empirically settled are completely at odds with how Americans and American media discuss politics. I'm not saying that everyone should do whatever poli scientists say -- I'm saying that everyone should agree to the poly sci consensus on the few issues that have been well studied for which a huge consensus exists. That change alone would force us to rewrite 95% of political media coverage. Here's one example: http://www.slate.com/id/2256068/ http://www.slate.com/id/2256068/
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  You'll have to forgive me, but I expect you to earn your chops. Coming into a thread and announcing that you're so sorry folks are uninformed isn't a very good way to get started in a discussion. And over several posts, I've yet to see a single theory expounded and supported, although you've made mention of a prominent book and fallen back on consensus. I'm not trying to "bust your chops" or trash you or anything. It's just very difficult to have a conversation when there is no point to be argued aside from "people mostly don't understand political science like they should" which could apply to any one of a hundred sciences. I hope that came out well. I'm really not trying to sound snide. I just have no idea where you are going with this aside from posturing. It's perplexing. I'm done here. Don't want to waste other folk's time (or mine) Thank you for your time. Look forward to continuing the discussion at a future date. Sounds like you've read and studied quite a bit. Would love to see you show off some of that knowledge. At another time.
evgen 16y ago
It is worth noting that "political science" covers a lot of ground... Much like economics, there are some sub-fields that deal with "small" questions with a great deal of empirical rigor and and other sub-fields that are more theoretical and philosophical. The closer the sub-field is to stats & neuro-physio/psychology the more it resembles other hard sciences. The past decade has seen a lot of interesting work in this area and a lot of it has turned out to be something of a surprise in terms of deflating the "rational actors making reasoned choices" myths that many people subscribe to.