3 ms·

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

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.

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.