Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 9/16/08 01:18 PM, SHIT-TANK wrote:

Also McCain is sellout.

Talk about who's selling out, Obama whores himself to every group just to get their vote.

Does anybody remember about 8 years ago where John McCain was viewed as a "Maverick" in the Republican Party and Bush and Carl Rove smeared his image and burried him so completely that he realized that he had to play ball with the republicans? He did whatever he could to get leverage i.e. that famous 90% voteing with Bush stat that everybody loves to through around.

Voting along party lines 90% is still impressive considering he ranks 64th most partisan. As opposed to Obama who votes along party lines over 96%.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama -votes-the-party-line-more-than-mccain

Two summers ago McCain was holding fundraisers so he could buy gas for his bus to get to the next state. So that makes me wonder how many lobbiest and corporations have him in his back pocket for him to go from dead last to number 1.

1) Thank Iowa for giving him momentum.
2) How much did Wall Street and the Media give Obama in contributions?
-Obama flip flopped on his raising the capital gains tax
-Obama wants the Fairness Doctrine, which will kill talk radio
-Obama flip flopped on his position with nuclear power

Did he have an epiphany? Was it corporate interests? Did he just decide to go with what's popular? Is he just saying stuff to get your vote?

Barack Obama is not corrupt

Did he change his mind on that? Last I heard, the Rezko incident proves some form of corruption.

Also I sorry if I would like to vote for a candidate that is more educated then the competition I guess that makes me some elitist pussy.

The point Mason makes is that college doesn't define a person, life experiences do.

I have my own point to add and that is all Universities are the same. The texbooks are all almost the same, the classes offered are, for the most part, the same. The professors teach in similar manners, and resources available to students for learning purposes don't vary.

The school I go to has many programs in the top 10 in the nation, yet we learn the exact same stuff as U of Penn (Ivy-ranks 1 in undergrad business), Berkeley (Public-ranks 3), and University of Central Missouri (not ranked).

---

Its not about how many times you fight your party, its about on what you fight your party.

Also, when I talked about hiring someone, I was tlaking about a BA, not hiring a lawyer. Besides, the President is nto a lawyer, he is a decision maker and a leader. The key role of the President is leadership. You do nto need to know everything about everything, you need to be able to make decisions based on the evidence, and advice you have, you need to be able to give direction.

Law school does not teach you these skills, but I am pretty should Annapolis would.

It is impossible for the President to know everything, that is why he has advisor's, Agency directors, Cabinet etc etc etc. To say merely knowing more stuff makes you better for President I would disagree. You need experience leading people, and I hate to say it but a community organizer is not the type of leadership I am talking about. Making tough decisions, sometimes unpopular ones at that.

---

At 9/15/08 11:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 9/15/08 10:54 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/15/08 08:38 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 9/14/08 07:36 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Another stupid thread about the "experience issue". Seriously, as I've said before and I'll say again, experience doesn't mean shit. Nothing can prepare you for the job of president, so everyone needs to stop pretending they'd be a better president because of their "experience".

Ha, ha, ha! You said it so it must be so!

And likewhise, it must be important because you said it was? This can go either way.

You came across as flippantly disregarding the notion that a person's experience is unnecessary for consideration.

Furthermore, an appeal to authority when that person is an authority on the subject is legitimate.

You think your an authority on the subject. How very modest of you.

Anyway, experience does matter...even if there is no formal path to the presidency. For example there have been 17 presidents with gubernatorial experience and about 8 with senatorial experience. This is important because the structure of the governor's office very closely resembles the structure of the presidency.

Some of those presidents that had senatorial experience were some of the best. And I know this fact has been beaten to death, but Lincoln didn't have any experience when he became president.

You do not address my main point, but instead bite upon trivia. From a structural perspective, certain offices are remarkably similar to that of the presidency. In fact if you look at the last five presidents only one was not a governor and had Federal experience (Bush the Elder). You said that there was nothing to prepare someone to be president and I made the argument that being governor is a good route that many have taken.

Yah, that's true. A governor is more similar to the office of president than that of a senator. But that doesn't mean being a governor automatically makes you a good candiate for president. My point is we should focus on the issues, not who has the most "experience".

Secondly, a person who had worked on Wall Street would have relevent experience in managing fiscal policy.

Third, a person who held a command in the military has relevent experience.

True, a person does have experience in those things, but that doesn't effect whenever they'd be a good president or not. I suppose that was my real point: not really that experience is completely worthless, rather that experience doesn't make a good president. But I've already said this so many times, I won't to make it short and blunt. Sorry for any confusion.

Experience is only a piece of the pie...but to totally discard it as an important issue is folly.

But issues are way, way, way more important than experience. I'll vote for who I think will be the best for the country based on how well I think their platforms will work, not how much political experience they have...

Now just because you have served in these capacities should not be the end of the discussion. Was John McCain a competent commander? Sarah Palin a good governor? Barrack Obama competent on Wall Street...wait he opted to become rich as a "community organizer" (thereby gaining experience in things that a president will not have to deal with).

Well, that's completely subjective. I mean, a community organizer would have to "organize", wouldn't they, doesn't the president "organize" the cabinent, federal departments, budject, etc... Not saying that really important, just pointing out it subjective.

It is not really all that subjective when you look at it from a structural perspective. A community organizer is powerless and can only influence policy not legislate or craft it. But again...the question initially raised is actually a nod towards your position. Quantity matters...but so does quality. And in regards to Obama and Palin...this is a double-edged sword. It cuts the Republicans a little less because Palin is in the #2 slot rather than the #1.

Yah, but if Obama may have less experience than McCain, but if he has better positions (not saying he does) than you shouldn't vote for McCain because of his experience. I think voting on the person's character, whenever it be their personality, their charisma, or their experience is complete folly, but if you want to vote that way, be my guest.

So what does Obama really offer other than an amorphous call for "change"? Something that was easy to do...and FDR did in 1932 (and then took Hoover's policies to new levels of government intervention). When dealing with the Russians what does he bring to the table...or the Norweigans for that matter?

Well, FDR was also one of our greatest presidents (but I suppose that's subjective too, but then again most historians agree with me on that). I'll answer your question about the Russians (and Norweigans): nothing. But really, what does John McCain, other than an over-aggresive attitude?

Too bad that most economists now look upon the Hoover/FDR policies as prolonging the Great Depression. And he saddled us with Social Security (and then bankrupted it with IOUs)...which will implode the federal budget in the next twenty years. Helluva legacy.

I definatly need a source for that. According to wikipedia not many people are very critical of him, and most historians rank him as one of the top three presidents.

Sorry friend, but experience does matter...regardless of what you say.

And again, I can say "experience doesn't matter...regardless of what you say." It's a double-edged sword here buddy.

Again it comes down to an appeal to authority and how has the cred to back it up. BS, Masters and half-way through PhD in Political Science here. You're profile says student, so upon what does your argument stand?

Ah, no... First off, how do I even know your telling the truth? Don't believe everything you here over the internet buddy, for all I know you could be a prepude 13 year old kid (you could say the samething about me of course, which is why brining real-life occupations in an internet debate is pure idiocy). Secondly, even if it is true (and I believe you, don't get me wrong, but it's still a crappy arguement) how does that make you right? I'm mastering in political science right now, so really your not much more qualified, and as I said that doesn't make you automatically right. Don't try and turn the debate into some kind of pissing contest. If anything, bringing this up has only made that claim less likely due to the pure stupidity of it.

---

At 9/16/08 07:04 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/15/08 11:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

Yah, that's true. A governor is more similar to the office of president than that of a senator. But that doesn't mean being a governor automatically makes you a good candiate for president. My point is we should focus on the issues, not who has the most "experience".

But issues are way, way, way more important than experience. I'll vote for who I think will be the best for the country based on how well I think their platforms will work, not how much political experience they have...

Yah, but if Obama may have less experience than McCain, but if he has better positions (not saying he does) than you shouldn't vote for McCain because of his experience. I think voting on the person's character, whenever it be their personality, their charisma, or their experience is complete folly, but if you want to vote that way, be my guest.

The thing about experience shows whether or not a person can walk-the-walk. It gives an indicator of future performance. Issues are important, but remember anyone with a speechwriter and acting lessons can take a stand on issues that have been designed and focus grouped to death. That is easy.

But can the candidate work across the aisle? On what programs/issues will they be able to draw upon their own knowledge to make a decision...and which programs/issues will they have to rely upon the expertise of their advisors and cabinet?

All of this comes down to one question: can the candidate deliver on their stands on the issues?

Afterall, they could have the plan and platform that will save us from Social Security and Medicare/aid. But if they cannot implement their vision...then their positions on the issues are irrelevent.

Stuff.

Your initial argument basically said you've stated your argument, therefore the debate should be concluded. Which I challenged with "who are you" to make such an absolutist argument that (in its absolutist incarnation) is not really a good one. So then that brings up the question who are we to claim such surity of our positions.

---

At 9/16/08 01:18 PM, SHIT-TANK wrote: Stuff...

Someone already addressed these points pretty effectively.

Barack Obama is not corrupt, he's just not safe and familiar enough for you to get past the bullshit. Also I sorry if I would like to vote for a candidate that is more educated then the competition I guess that makes me some elitist pussy.

Early on I looked at Obama and seriously thought about voting for him. However, the reason I am not planning on voting for him is not because he is black or that he represents a scary change. It is whenever I hear what change he wants to bring has been tried and has contributed to the economic mess we are in. Furthermore, his tax rhetoric shows someone who has no idea what he is talking about.

Furthermore, when you really look at the last eight years and what Bush has done in terms of expanding the federal government and spending...Obama is going to be Bush III if he is elected. And that is not the type of change we need (ie: a Democrat screwing us instead of a Republican).

As for education, see the discussion between Sauramon and I. Education is an important factor, but you have to look deeper than the surface. There are many educated idiots out there (ask my ex-wife...she'd testify I'm one). So you should look at the educational environment and what effects that has on the development of his character. It should be considered in sum with the totality of the person.

Finally, if you think I'm calling you an "elitist pussy"...you so totally misread and misunderstood what I was saying.

---

At 9/16/08 07:48 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 9/16/08 07:04 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/15/08 11:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

Yah, that's true. A governor is more similar to the office of president than that of a senator. But that doesn't mean being a governor automatically makes you a good candiate for president. My point is we should focus on the issues, not who has the most "experience".

But issues are way, way, way more important than experience. I'll vote for who I think will be the best for the country based on how well I think their platforms will work, not how much political experience they have...

Yah, but if Obama may have less experience than McCain, but if he has better positions (not saying he does) than you shouldn't vote for McCain because of his experience. I think voting on the person's character, whenever it be their personality, their charisma, or their experience is complete folly, but if you want to vote that way, be my guest.

The thing about experience shows whether or not a person can walk-the-walk. It gives an indicator of future performance. Issues are important, but remember anyone with a speechwriter and acting lessons can take a stand on issues that have been designed and focus grouped to death. That is easy.

Why, of course, but my main point remains: experience does not make a good president.

But can the candidate work across the aisle? On what programs/issues will they be able to draw upon their own knowledge to make a decision...and which programs/issues will they have to rely upon the expertise of their advisors and cabinet?

This is a good point, but I would rely hope that any candiate would rely not only on their own personal opinions, but also on the advice of the cabinet no matter how experienced they are.

All of this comes down to one question: can the candidate deliver on their stands on the issues?

Afterall, they could have the plan and platform that will save us from Social Security and Medicare/aid. But if they cannot implement their vision...then their positions on the issues are irrelevent.

I don't quite understand. An unexperienced candiate can put their visions into place as wel an experienced one, I don't really understand how this relates to experience.

Stuff.

Your initial argument basically said you've stated your argument, therefore the debate should be concluded. Which I challenged with "who are you" to make such an absolutist argument that (in its absolutist incarnation) is not really a good one. So then that brings up the question who are we to claim such surity of our positions.

Could I not say the same of you? I made an assertion, just like you did. We all have to assert our opinions for a debate to even happen. How was my opinion any more absolutist than yours? Maybe my view on this is radical, but it's hardly unmoving. Yours was no less stalwart. Maybe I used some strong language, but that's just linguistics. Once again, I apologize if you got the wrong idea.

---

At 9/16/08 08:38 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Why, of course, but my main point remains: experience does not make a good president.

Neither does being able to articulate their vision. A good president can blend the two.

But can the candidate work across the aisle? On what programs/issues will they be able to draw upon their own knowledge to make a decision...and which programs/issues will they have to rely upon the expertise of their advisors and cabinet?

This is a good point, but I would rely hope that any candiate would rely not only on their own personal opinions, but also on the advice of the cabinet no matter how experienced they are.

Of course you want them to listen to other people. However, do you really want someone ordering yourself or your family member into a military operation they do not intrinsically understand? What about financial policy?

All of this comes down to one question: can the candidate deliver on their stands on the issues?

Afterall, they could have the plan and platform that will save us from Social Security and Medicare/aid. But if they cannot implement their vision...then their positions on the issues are irrelevent.

I don't quite understand. An unexperienced candiate can put their visions into place as wel an experienced one, I don't really understand how this relates to experience.

There is a direct relationship between putting visions into practice vs. experience. JFK was not all that great at getting congress to go along with his policy objectives. LBJ on the other hand knew how to handle congress. So no, an unexperienced candidate is less likely to be effective at implementing his policy objectives.

Then there is the fact that this person has to essetially run an empire. In fact, let's go back to JFK, the president's inexperience brought us to the brink of war with the USSR in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khruschev viewed JFK as weak and inexperienced so he thought he could push. So now we have Putin's Russia that seeks to re-establish Russian empire in dramatic ways and uncaring of US position. What tests will Putin put a guy like Obama through?

Regardless of his platform or issues...I think Obama is going for a job that at this point in his life is outside of his skill set.

---

At 9/16/08 09:24 PM, TheMason wrote: Regardless of his platform or issues...I think Obama is going for a job that at this point in his life is outside of his skill set.

I kind of agree with you, even though I'll be voting for him. I knew he was going to make a run at the House after his keynote address, but I was also hoping that the McCain we knew 8 years ago (that I would have voted for over Gore, had he won the primary) would be running... not the shell of him that we see now... and that he would have 4-8 more years to learn the ropes... at which point (had he kept his nose clean) I would have bet money that he would be unbeatable. Instead he ran, and a little too well, this year. And it's a very rare occurrence that if somone loses a general election that they'll win in the next one... so it's now or never for him, now.

Which is too bad... imagine had he waited 4 more years... He could have learned that Nuclear Power is good, that windfall taxes are bad, that inheritance taxes are dumb, learned more about the military through his Foreign Relations Comittee... many many things.

---

Too bad that most economists now look upon the Hoover/FDR policies as prolonging the Great Depression.

That's because most economists are blinkered by their ideological beliefs and don't reflect on actualy situations or different modes of thought.

Not really, academic economists tend to shed their ideological leanings and deal with cold hard numbers.

'Cold hard numbers' tell you very little without an analytical framework, which is almost always of a neoliberal bent with current economists. Economics (and also Politics) is not a science: variables can not be isolated, the individual can not be seperated from the analysis and the modelling is crude at best.

If you fancy a bit of a read to labour the point about analytic frameworks, this was on the first page of google http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/
Papers/theory.pdf . Point 2 is the main thing, since my conclusions differ greatly from the author's.

Sorry, but this argument fails.

Because you said so? Sorry, but that argument fails.

And he saddled us with Social Security (and then bankrupted it with IOUs)...which will implode the federal budget in the next twenty years. Helluva legacy.

There's always military spending the US can cut back on, or it could decide which way to go with its health system rather than having its current pathetic halfbreed that sucks up money to give to private companies.

1) The military is actually bled dry. There is not much more cutting that can be done without destroying our effectiveness.

Ah, see that's the rub isn't it. I don't think the US needs as an effective military as it now has. It doesn't need to have hegemonic military power; it doesn't need to account for 46% of world military spending; it doesn't need to be returning to a Cold War level of spending. These are just desires for strength and power: they have nothing to do with defence.

This knee jerk argument is often the first sign of ignorance.

You can keep the arrogance to a minimum, thank you.

2) Healthcare needs to be kept private. In 20 years every dollar the government takes in will barely be able to pay for Social Security and Medicare/aid. There will be no revenue available for any other program: education, roads, military, or UHC (if we add it to our expenses). Pretty much our politicians (from FDR to the next president, Democrat or Republican) have put us on a collision course with governmental bankruptcy. Now is not the time to add another entitlement.

My problem with Medicare/aid is that they are bastard programmes that fail to deliver and cost shit loads. Either go one way or the other: Universal healthcare or a completely private system would cost less.

---

At 9/17/08 06:19 AM, Slizor wrote: 'Cold hard numbers' tell you very little without an analytical framework, which is almost always of a neoliberal bent with current economists. Economics (and also Politics) is not a science: variables can not be isolated, the individual can not be seperated from the analysis and the modelling is crude at best.

Science: -noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Scientific Method
Step 1: Ask a Question
Step 2: Do Background Research
Step 3: Construct a Hypothesis
Step 4: Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Step 5: Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Step 6: Communicate Your Results

SOURCE: Definition SOURCE: Scientific Method

Since you bring up the debate on whether or not politics and the "dismal" science are actually scientific.

Guess what? Political science and economics can be considered sciences. First of all look at the definition of science. To some extent or another political scientists and economists meet all of those criteria. This is further abutted by an examination of either against the scientific method.

Step 1: Ask a question: We do that, furthermore our professional/academic norms require that these questions be worthy of asking.

Step 2: Do Background Research: We do this by looking at case studies and examining the various datasets that have been collected. We also do cross-disciplinary research into psychology, economics and sociology to see what relevent theories are being worked on.

Step3: Construct a Hypothesis: We do this as well, in fact we usually construct about four when undertaking a research design. We call these rival alternative hypothesis.

Step 4: Test your Hypothesis by doing an Experiment: Most political scientists and economists do statistical analysis of real world observations. This analysis is often rather complex and does isolate variables. In fact we are trained in techniques to look for intervening variables. Other political scientists (I cannot speak for economists on this because I am not one) actually do experiments much like sociology and psychology.

Step 5: Analyze your data and draw a Conclusion: Again, we do this every time we write a paper intended for publication.

Step 6: Communicate your Results: We do this through publication of articles in peer reviewed journals (not books so much, what you pick-up at Barnes & Noble is not really political science). We do have some non-peer reviewed journals, but those are considered lesser publications.

Your criticisms do not make us not a science, but rather address the problem of how valid our results are. When you use the criticism to attack the validity of our work you are onto something, but when you try and say we are not a science because of it...this is where your argument fails. Afterall, if political science and economics are not sciences for the reasons you outlined (difficulty in isolating variables, bias and crude modeling) then neither are the atmospheric sciences (bye, bye global warming as scientific fact).

Afterall, weather and the atmosphere are dynamic systems that are made up of too many inter-related variables that does not allow for variables to be isolated in such a way for even our most sophisticated computers to accurately model. Then there are questions of bias in terms of pressure to publish certain results or lose funding.

Furthermore, your criticism that you cannot isolate the researcher from the analytical framework (bias) similarly falls flat. A physicist works within in an Einsteinian analytical framework, and as such will resist new ideas. Look at the trouble Einstein had in 1905...the miracle year...because he was going against Brownian motion. What about Faraday and his theories about electromagnetism? Physics, chemistry and biology are equally closed to notions that upset their dominant research paradigms. So in this way your argument fails because the "hard" sciences also have problems with isolating the researching from the dominant analytical framework. (My ex-wife is a MD, but worked in Bio-Medical labs between her BA and MD. I spent much time in the lab with her, learning about science and the practice thereof.)

As for this argument against political science and economics concerning bias (I'm re-phrasing "seperating the individual from analytical framework" as bias), we do much to reduce and manage bias. Our coding is transparent or we don't get publish. It is peer reviewed by our immediate collegues in very intense "brown bag" lunch presentations before we submit our work to a journal. We also have other people code the data for us who often do not know what our research question is.

In summary, political science and economics are sciences. We fit the defintional criteria for a science, but more importantly we also follow the scientific method. Furthermore, issues of variable isolation, bias and crude modeling are not problems that we alone deal with. Atmospheric sciences, physics, chemistry and biology all have to deal with this "validity" issues...issues that do not define whether or not a systematic branch of knowledge is scientific or not.

But to tie this in to ideology...yes there is a neoliberal bent amongst economists right now. But how is that different from the Einsteinian paradigm? Are you suggesting that we should look for the ether...that somehow Einstein got it wrong in 1905 and this substance that cannot be observed actually exists? That would be folly because we know Einsteinian physics works better than what came before. Therefore, when the numbers explain the world best under a neoliberal framework (or falsify neoliberalism less than socialism) should we use the perjorative of "ideological"?

In the end, your critism is very unscientific.

---

At 9/16/08 12:56 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 9/16/08 12:37 PM, TheMason wrote: 2) Healthcare needs to be kept private. In 20 years every dollar the government takes in will barely be able to pay for Social Security and Medicare/aid.

Wouldn't UHC remove the need for Medicare/aid?

It would, but it would do nothing to solve the problem but most likely make it worse. If we are moving towards budgetary collapse because of this program why would we want to expand it? Because that is essentially what UHC will do, expand government provided healthcare to cover more people.

So it won't be a program with the Medicare/aid name...but another program with another name creating a fiscal nightmare 10-15 years from now rather than 20-25 years from now.

---

I'm not quite sure why anyone would wish to engage in the cross-atlantic academic sniping that goes on about 'political science', nor do I understand why this is the main point of a post....nevertheless......

Science: -noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

This is my understanding of science: this is the definition that I use. The important thing to note is the 'operation of general laws', which is something that Politics lacks. I mean, if the only law that you can come up with (Duverger's) is only right most of the time then you're not really dealing with a branch of knowledge that should be understood in scientific terms.

Step 4: Test your Hypothesis by doing an Experiment: Most political scientists and economists do statistical analysis of real world observations. This analysis is often rather complex and does isolate variables. In fact we are trained in techniques to look for intervening variables. Other political scientists (I cannot speak for economists on this because I am not one) actually do experiments much like sociology and psychology.

In the confined areas of politics that stats can be used in (such as studies on elections and voting): students of politics do use stats in such a way. But if we're confining politics to that then you're losing out on pretty much all the interesting areas of politics: areas where different interpretations can make politics a viciously-fought battleground. For example, how do we decide on China's current intentions for the future? Are they benign, in line with the government pushing the idea of a 'peaceful rise'? Are they sneakily expansionist: modernising their military so they can win Tzuesque bloodless victories? Or are they intent on a peaceful rise, but recognise that their desires conflict with those of the US and that to redress power imbalances a modern military force is required?

Different bits of data can be used to support different points on this subject. In fact, the same data can be used to support completely different conclusions.

Wait wait wait - where's the point about falsifiability? That's always been the defining feature of the science method for me. What about replication of results?

I think that the scientific method is a lot more complicated then the definition you brought up would imply.

Your criticisms do not make us not a science, but rather address the problem of how valid our results are. When you use the criticism to attack the validity of our work you are onto something, but when you try and say we are not a science because of it...this is where your argument fails.

I don't really care what you wish to label the study of politics as long as the questions over validity are properly understood and not obsfuscated as they are in economics.

Afterall, if political science and economics are not sciences for the reasons you outlined (difficulty in isolating variables, bias and crude modeling) then neither are the atmospheric sciences (bye, bye global warming as scientific fact).

Meh, global warming is a political fact now.

Look at the trouble Einstein had in 1905...the miracle year...because he was going against Brownian motion. What about Faraday and his theories about electromagnetism?

And look what advances economics has made in that time.............................my god, it's back to being exactly the same as a hundred years ago.

Physics, chemistry and biology are equally closed to notions that upset their dominant research paradigms. So in this way your argument fails because the "hard" sciences also have problems with isolating the researching from the dominant analytical framework.

Not really. A dominant framework in the hard sciences can be taught as truth until dethroned, in politics and economics it's more akin to brainwashing.

In summary, political science and economics are sciences. We fit the defintional criteria for a science, but more importantly we also follow the scientific method.

From what I've seen, a limited version of politics fits a broad definition of a science and follows a simplified scientific method.

Furthermore, issues of variable isolation, bias and crude modeling are not problems that we alone deal with. Atmospheric sciences, physics, chemistry and biology all have to deal with this "validity" issues...

Fair enough, although physics, chemistry and biology all have the huge advantage of having falsifiability.

Therefore, when the numbers explain the world best under a neoliberal framework (or falsify neoliberalism less than socialism) should we use the perjorative of "ideological"?

It does not harm to remember the questionability of one's premises. It does a lot of harm to stifle debate by claiming objective truth.

In the end, your critism is very unscientific.

I don't try to offer the veneer of objective fact that claiming my work is scientific implies.

---

At 9/17/08 06:54 PM, Slizor wrote: I'm not quite sure why anyone would wish to engage in the cross-atlantic academic sniping that goes on about 'political science', nor do I understand why this is the main point of a post....nevertheless......

Funny and just a little hypocritical when you look at the post history. You were the one who sniped at my profession. And so now you wish to portray my defense as something trite? How very droll of you my friend.

Science: -noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

This is my understanding of science: this is the definition that I use. The important thing to note is the 'operation of general laws', which is something that Politics lacks. I mean, if the only law that you can come up with (Duverger's) is only right most of the time then you're not really dealing with a branch of knowledge that should be understood in scientific terms.

1) That you have a narrow personal understanding of science does not invalidate the other six definitions. Were you not the person who was making the argument that one needed to seperate the individual from the analytical framework?

2) Sciences such as physics and chemistry have abandoned the search for "general laws" because every time we think we've got the definitive, objective "truth"...technology improves and we find we were wrong in some way. Even Newtons "laws" are today understood as theories. All your talk of "laws" is adherence to an archaic definition of science.

Step 4: Test your Hypothesis by doing an Experiment:

In the confined areas of politics that stats can be used in (such as studies on elections and voting): students of politics do use stats in such a way. But if we're confining politics to that then you're losing out on pretty much all the interesting areas of politics: areas where different interpretations can make politics a viciously-fought battleground.

Au contraire my friend. Here you show a lack of knowledge when it comes to both political science and what you consider science. First of all, in the US we apply stats to practically everything and not just voting. Civil rights, war, sanctions, trade, crime, gun control, presidential speeches, etc., etc.

As for the predictive power, there is a subset of political scientists (game theorists or rational choice) who engage in mathematical experimentation to predict behavior of actors and have shown remarkable accuracy with their math. Here's one of the leading rational choice political scientists in a popular e-magazine (not an academic journal). Now you may be thinking "a thought experiment is not science"...you would be wrong. E=MC2 is the result of thought experiments. Einstein was famous for being horribly dangerous in a lab, but brilliant with chalk and a blackboard. String theory is also the result of mathematical "thought experiments". Therefore if you're going to go down the path you've started on with this criticism...you also invalidate theoretical physics.

Wait wait wait - where's the point about falsifiability? That's always been the defining feature of the science method for me. What about replication of results?

Falsifiability (which I addressed at some point) is a scientific fool's errand. Remember the point I made above about how using "general laws" is an archaic definition of science? This is part of it. All the experiments in the world cannot prove a theory is a law...but one experiment can prove it is not. (Sorry Einstein if I butchered it too horribly!)

As for replication, that is easily done when you're talking about statistical analysis and rational choice. You lock your data set, say which version of STATA, SAS or SPSS you ran your analysis on and disperse that with your syntax. So yes replication of results is easily done in political science.

Look at the trouble Einstein had in 1905...the miracle year...because he was going against Brownian motion. What about Faraday and his theories about electromagnetism?

And look what advances economics has made in that time.............................my god, it's back to being exactly the same as a hundred years ago.

Ummm...this is not really an effective critique. I mean look at how long the "laws" of Newton stood until a better and more explanatory paradigm came about.

Physics, chemistry and biology are equally closed to notions that upset their dominant research paradigms. So in this way your argument fails because the "hard" sciences also have problems with isolating the researching from the dominant analytical framework.

Not really. A dominant framework in the hard sciences can be taught as truth until dethroned, in politics and economics it's more akin to brainwashing.

A dominant framework in any discipline has an effect on the individual's psyche no matter what they are studying. A physicist or biologist is just as apt to only pursue a certain set of questions within that analytical framework as an economist or political scientist. Einstein was not universally accepted immediately following his miracle year...in fact he continued working as a patent clerk not getting a professorship until 1911.

Look a Faraday...even after his pioneering work in electromagnatism his election to the Royal Society was oppossed by Daly. There is a trend, even in the "hard" scientists to reject new ideas that go against the standing paradigm. And furthermore, make life difficult on the Einsteins and Faradays who buck conventional thinking. If scientists actually studied the history and biographies of the great scientists of the modern era...they would realize that they are human beings and not Vulcans. Their science is just as prone to what you criticize my science of.

From what I've seen, a limited version of politics fits a broad definition of a science and follows a simplified scientific method.

Then you haven't seen enough.

Fair enough, although physics, chemistry and biology all have the huge advantage of having falsifiability.

There is not a single human endeavor that is not falsifiable. Furthermore, you overestimate the importance of falsifiability.

It does not harm to remember the questionability of one's premises. It does a lot of harm to stifle debate by claiming objective truth.

And yet debate is not stifled. You can make any argument you want, but without data you're building an argument of cards. Furthermore, if you look at the history of science you will see many physicists and chemists whose arguments have either been effectively stifled because they against a dominant paradigm (ie: objective truth).

In the end, your critism is very unscientific.

I don't try to offer the veneer of objective fact that claiming my work is scientific implies.

If the term "scientific" implies that a finding is objectively true...then it is because the person perceiving the implication is unfamiliar with just how "unscientific" science really is.

As for veneers...the only one who is applying a veneer of "objective truth" is you in regards to what you preceive science is.

---

I am going to have to side with Slizor on this, politics is not a science, in the traditional sense of science (such as chemistry and physics). Some parts of of political research make use of the scientific model, especially neo-realism. While it does draw on science, it is viewed through a analytical framework, thus is nto impartial. Two people can look at the same set of facts and see two different results.

What I don't get is how people refer to politics and economics, as if they are two distinctly separate things. Politics is economics and economics is poltiics. Karl MArx, Adam Smith were not economists, they were Political Eocnomists, its only until the last half century that Political Economy has been split into two categories. Spliting them and refering to it as Political Science is deceiving, making a very subjective subject seem objective.

---

At 9/18/08 01:32 PM, JoS wrote: I am going to have to side with Slizor on this, politics is not a science, in the traditional sense of science (such as chemistry and physics). Some parts of of political research make use of the scientific model, especially neo-realism. While it does draw on science, it is viewed through a analytical framework, thus is nto impartial. Two people can look at the same set of facts and see two different results.

There is a difference between political analysis and political science. What the position you and Slizor are taking is obfuscating the two. What we do on NG is not the same thing that is done in academic political science. If we are talking about my posts here on NG: you are correct that I am not doing science. However, when I write a paper I am following the scientific method and I am engaging in a scientific endeavor. You simply cannot look at what you see here, on CNN, FOX, ABC, etc and compare it to what goes on in Academia at and above the graduate level. They are not the same thing, and as such what I do my Academic/Professional life...should not be judged by punditry.

One aside, people engaged in a "studies" program (American, African-American, Gender, etc.) are not political scientists. These are cross-discipline people who do not adhere to the scientific norms that guide political science.

Furthermore, your argument about an analytical framework not being impartial...this also cuts what you describe as "traditional" science. Researchers, regardless of what they are researching, conduct their research inside an analytical framework and thus close themselves off to outside possibilities and alternative hypothesis. Look at Faraday with his thoughts on electromagnetism...he was ridiculed because he went against the dominant paradigm. Einstein's ideas also met with similiar resistance because it went against an analytical framework. And these are just the mavericks we know about.

What I don't get is how people refer to politics and economics, as if they are two distinctly separate things. Politics is economics and economics is poltiics. Karl MArx, Adam Smith were not economists, they were Political Eocnomists, its only until the last half century that Political Economy has been split into two categories. Spliting them and refering to it as Political Science is deceiving, making a very subjective subject seem objective.

I agree that there is alot of cross-over between political science and economics. However, political science is much larger in scope than economics. You could just as easily say that political science is the same thing as psychology and sociology.

As for yours and Slizor's subjective vs. objective viewpoint: it overestimates the objectiveness of physics, chemistry and biology as much it overestimates political science's subjectiveness.

---

Funny and just a little hypocritical when you look at the post history. You were the one who sniped at my profession. And so now you wish to portray my defense as something trite? How very droll of you my friend.

Actually I mentioned a debate in my profession as an aside, something you seem to have got quite huffy about.

This is my understanding of science: this is the definition that I use. The important thing to note is the 'operation of general laws', which is something that Politics lacks. I mean, if the only law that you can come up with (Duverger's) is only right most of the time then you're not really dealing with a branch of knowledge that should be understood in scientific terms.

1) That you have a narrow personal understanding of science does not invalidate the other six definitions.

That you choose to use a broader definition of science does not invalidate my choice of a specific definition of science.

Were you not the person who was making the argument that one needed to seperate the individual from the analytical framework?

No, I wasn't. I was the one saying I relished the areas of contestability in politics.

2) Sciences such as physics and chemistry have abandoned the search for "general laws" because every time we think we've got the definitive, objective "truth"...technology improves and we find we were wrong in some way.

It is able to abandon laws when they are proven wrong because science is falsifiable....something which the vast majority of politics lacks.

Au contraire my friend. Here you show a lack of knowledge when it comes to both political science and what you consider science. First of all, in the US we apply stats to practically everything and not just voting. Civil rights, war, sanctions, trade, crime, gun control, presidential speeches, etc., etc.

Slow it down there. I'm talking about mathmatical modelling, not just 'using stats'.

As for the predictive power, there is a subset of political scientists (game theorists or rational choice) who engage in mathematical experimentation to predict behavior of actors and have shown remarkable accuracy with their math.

They've found a level of accuracy (not remarkable in any way shape or form) in the small areas where rational choice theory has been extensively applied.

Here's one of the leading rational choice political scientists in a popular e-magazine (not an academic journal).

It's fairly easy to model the behaviour of states in conflict in IR theory because the vast majority of people employed in foreign offices are taught to think in realist terms - they will work like rational actors.

Wait wait wait - where's the point about falsifiability? That's always been the defining feature of the science method for me. What about replication of results?

Falsifiability (which I addressed at some point) is a scientific fool's errand. Remember the point I made above about how using "general laws" is an archaic definition of science?

Wait wait, you're rejecting the first definition of science? You're berating me for my narrow view of science, but you're going to reject that part of the definition that you brought up? Fucking hell.

All the experiments in the world cannot prove a theory is a law...but one experiment can prove it is not.

Which is its glory.

As for replication, that is easily done when you're talking about statistical analysis and rational choice. You lock your data set, say which version of STATA, SAS or SPSS you ran your analysis on and disperse that with your syntax. So yes replication of results is easily done in political science.

No, it's easily done in rational choice statistical modelling, which is a tiny little bit of politics and which has major methodological problems.

You berate me for being over specific in my definition and then try to prove a general point with a very specific example. Tut tut.

Look at the trouble Einstein had in 1905...the miracle year...because he was going against Brownian motion. What about Faraday and his theories about electromagnetism?

And look what advances economics has made in that time.............................my god, it's back to being exactly the same as a hundred years ago.

Ummm...this is not really an effective critique. I mean look at how long the "laws" of Newton stood until a better and more explanatory paradigm came about.

No-one has gone back to Newton though. The world economic viewpoint switched from neoclassical thinking to other frameworks (like Keynesian) and then back. Scientific laws don't just resurrect themselves like that.

Physics, chemistry and biology are equally closed to notions that upset their dominant research paradigms. So in this way your argument fails because the "hard" sciences also have problems with isolating the researching from the dominant analytical framework.

Not really. A dominant framework in the hard sciences can be taught as truth until dethroned, in politics and economics it's more akin to brainwashing.

A dominant framework in any discipline has an effect on the individual's psyche no matter what they are studying.

But there's much more a question of proof with politics and eocnomics.

Their science is just as prone to what you criticize my science of.

No its not. There is a large degree of difference between them. You've highlighted a few examples of science doing what is the norm in politics.

From what I've seen, a limited version of politics fits a broad definition of a science and follows a simplified scientific method.

Then you haven't seen enough.

Pretty arrogant thing to say to someone who has the same level of full qualifications as you in politics.

Fair enough, although physics, chemistry and biology all have the huge advantage of having falsifiability.

There is not a single human endeavor that is not falsifiable.

The search for God. It can't be proven that he doesn't exist. Or more to the point, the search for human nature.

It does not harm to remember the questionability of one's premises. It does a lot of harm to stifle debate by claiming objective truth.

And yet debate is not stifled. You can make any argument you want, but without data you're building an argument of cards.

It's not a question of not having data or evidence, it's a question of the methodological assumptions that underlie the data being buried.

In the end, your critism is very unscientific.

I don't try to offer the veneer of objective fact that claiming my work is scientific implies.

If the term "scientific" implies that a finding is objectively true...then it is because the person perceiving the implication is unfamiliar with just how "unscientific" science really is.

Or, instead of your blindingly arrogant view that I'm just ignorant, it could be that I take a far different view on where the lines of what is science and what isn't science should be drawn.

As for veneers...the only one who is applying a veneer of "objective truth" is you in regards to what you preceive science is.

Not really seeing as I've engaged you in debate and not tried to shout you down or refused to acknowledge anything you've said.

---

At 9/18/08 01:49 PM, TheMason wrote: There is a difference between political analysis and political science. What the position you and Slizor are taking is obfuscating the two. What we do on NG is not the same thing that is done in academic political science.

I clearly know the difference between what we do here and what is done in academia.

However, when I write a paper I am following the scientific method and I am engaging in a scientific endeavor.

Correct em if I am wrong but most analytical frameworks do not subscribe to the scientific method. Neorealism and perhaps rational choice/game theorists are the only exceptions. Science also works on the notion its repeatable if you match the same conditions. Political Science is not necessarily repeatable. Having the same conditions does not guarantee the same results.

Furthermore, your argument about an analytical framework not being impartial...this also cuts what you describe as "traditional" science. Researchers, regardless of what they are researching, conduct their research inside an analytical framework and thus close themselves off to outside possibilities and alternative hypothesis.

A political analyticla framework though filters what is considered relavent adn irrelevant to the researcher. If you have a neo-realist researchers and a MArxist researcher looking at the same set of facts, the neo-realist will merely look at the wealth of the state as one of thier factors, ignoring income distribution, while the Marxist will place a high emphasis on the wealth distribution between individuals. When looking at the same set of facts, each will produce very different results.

I agree that there is alot of cross-over between political science and economics. However, political science is much larger in scope than economics. You could just as easily say that political science is the same thing as psychology and sociology.

Political Science borrows upon sociology, but politics is primarily concerned with the study of power wherever power may exist. Economics is more than just econometrics, which in modern academia it has been reduced to. Economics is power, ingrained the structure of power. It is the foundation on which politics is built. To look at one without looking at the other is awkward to say the least.

However, given my BA is in International Political Economy I am probably a little biased.

As for yours and Slizor's subjective vs. objective viewpoint: it overestimates the objectiveness of physics, chemistry and biology as much it overestimates political science's subjectiveness.

---

At 9/18/08 04:54 PM, JoS wrote: Political Science is not necessarily repeatable. Having the same conditions does not guarantee the same results.

Of course it does... you can just never have the same conditions. You can't remove enough variables in Poly Sci to do a truly scientific method study. Hence the "soft" science label.