olivier in france Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Right. The one who discredited Political Science as complete BS isn't the arrogant know it all, I am. Its obvious you didn't do any research, or you would have realized what I was talking about. Listen you can not watch 5 minutes of news TV without seeing one of those political "science " or economical "science" "experts" explaining us the stupid voters/ consumers how everything that happens was so easy to forecast because the exact same thing had happened that year or that other year... forgetting the ten other times the exact contrary happened. Political scientists are like Monday Morning QBs at the nearest sports bar... lot of talk and nothing else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 Listen you can not watch 5 minutes of news TV without seeing one of those political "science " or economical "science" "experts" explaining us the stupid voters/ consumers how everything that happens was so easy to forecast because the exact same thing had happened that year or that other year... forgetting the ten other times the exact contrary happened. Political scientists are like Monday Morning QBs at the nearest sports bar... lot of talk and nothing else... Um, real political scientists tend not to work for the media... hell, most of the ones I took classes from often pointed out all the problems with the media and pundits. Most also don't tend to talk in definites... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Um, real political scientists tend not to work for the media... So writing a story for the Wall Street Journal is not "work for the media"? Or do you consider the writer of your link as a "unreal" political scientist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 So writing a story for the Wall Street Journal is not "work for the media"? Or do you consider the writer of your link as a "unreal" political scientist? Neither. Notice I said "tend", which means (from dictionary.com): to be disposed or inclined in action, operation, or effect to do something: The particles tend to unite. Notice how his day job is working for a polling firm (aka not a pundit)? Notice how he also talks to other political scientists for his article? Notice how he doesn't talk in definites, unlike the way you characterized it? Notice how he sets up an overall picture, while acknowledging multiple things could happen? The article goes against your characterization of political science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Coming from a scientific background, I am offended at the "scientist" portion of political scientist. Same thing with "social sciences". Neither are scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 Coming from a scientific background, I am offended at the "scientist" portion of political scientist. Same thing with "social sciences".Neither are scientific. Be offended all you want, but the use of the term has evolved, especially in the 1900s, to refer to just the Natural Sciences. Back in the 1800s, when Baxter Adams coined the phrase, it was applicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Neither. Notice I said "tend", which means (from dictionary.com): to be disposed or inclined in action, operation, or effect to do something: The particles tend to unite. Notice how his day job is working for a polling firm (aka not a pundit)? Notice how he also talks to other political scientists for his article? Notice how he doesn't talk in definites, unlike the way you characterized it? Notice how he sets up an overall picture, while acknowledging multiple things could happen? The article goes against your characterization of political science. Come on the guy is no different of the lessons givers i see on TV, listen on the radio or read in the paper every single day with their great titles, their "research" jobs in Blablaba Institute, their blablabla University Doctorate and their non stop figures spinning the way they want them to spin. And of course they say they have much more serious things to do than to write or speak in the media while they are actually there everyday! At the end once in a while they are actually right and live on the reputation of their lucky forecast for the rest of their career... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 Come on the guy is no different of the lessons givers i see on TV, listen on the radio or read in the paper every single day with their great titles, their "research" jobs in Blablaba Institute, their blablabla University Doctorate and their non stop figures spinning the way they want them to spin. And of course they say they have much more serious things to do than to write or speak in the media while they are actually there everyday! At the end once in a while they are actually right and live on the reputation of their lucky forecast for the rest of their career... Prove all of what you just said about that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 By the way, I suggest starting by comparing most articles and pundits (which lack information from true political scientists) to this one (which references Leonard Williams and Neil Wollman). Then, explain how this is the same as pundits giving their opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Neither. Notice I said "tend", which means (from dictionary.com): to be disposed or inclined in action, operation, or effect to do something: The particles tend to unite. Notice how his day job is working for a polling firm (aka not a pundit)? Notice how he also talks to other political scientists for his article? Notice how he doesn't talk in definites, unlike the way you characterized it? Notice how he sets up an overall picture, while acknowledging multiple things could happen? The article goes against your characterization of political science. That ain't science, though. Science uses empirical observation and/or deductive reasoning to develop theories to explain past behaviors and explain future ones. Political science ain't there yet, not when they're talking about "tendencies". Come on the guy is no different of the lessons givers i see on TV, listen on the radio or read in the paper every single day with their great titles, their "research" jobs in Blablaba Institute, their blablabla University Doctorate and their non stop figures spinning the way they want them to spin. And of course they say they have much more serious things to do than to write or speak in the media while they are actually there everyday! At the end once in a while they are actually right and live on the reputation of their lucky forecast for the rest of their career... I think you're thinking about think-tank analysts, who aren't necessarily political scientists, and not necessarily analysts or researchers despite their title, either. Usually, in fact, they're former staffers of previous administrations or legislator's offices who take jobs with "independent" firms to prove they're not intellectually biased while they preach their intellectual bias... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 That ain't science, though. Science uses empirical observation and/or deductive reasoning to develop theories to explain past behaviors and explain future ones. Political science ain't there yet, not when they're talking about "tendencies". And I won't argue the point that its not a "Science" in today's lexicon. I was pointing out that when the term was formed (in the 1800s), the word "Science" had a different meaning. I think you're thinking about think-tank analysts, who aren't necessarily political scientists, and not necessarily analysts or researchers despite their title, either. Usually, in fact, they're former staffers of previous administrations or legislator's offices who take jobs with "independent" firms to prove they're not intellectually biased while they preach their intellectual bias... ^^^ What he said, although I'm being more hostile about it, since you chose to be sarcastic and combative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 And I won't argue the point that its not a "Science" in today's lexicon. I was pointing out that when the term was formed (in the 1800s), the word "Science" had a different meaning. Not THAT much different...the scientific method dates back to the Greeks. But given that up until Darwin's publications there was faint difference between "scientists" and "natural philosophers", I will concede the point. ^^^ What he said, although I'm being more hostile about it, since you chose to be sarcastic and combative. He's not being sarcastic and combative. He's just French. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I see the lib talking heads are already trying the McCain=Bush line of BS. How exactly has McCain differentiated himself from Bush in any meaningful way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Back in April 2002 when Le Pen finished second in the french presidential race... After a full year of political analysis 7/7 24/24 of the presidential campaign in all the media, not ONE expert, poll, "scientist", analyst, researcher had forecasted Le Pen will be there for the second round. And the next day they were all back in their seat on national TV, on talk show radio studios, in our "opinions" newspaper pages analysing what had happened and how they should have know it was going to happen because there was that sign, that figure, that poll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 Not THAT much different...the scientific method dates back to the Greeks. But given that up until Darwin's publications there was faint difference between "scientists" and "natural philosophers", I will concede the point. Indeed. My understanding is that the term "Scientist" didn't actually become popular until the late 1800s as a way to refer to someone who studies the natural sciences, which was around the time that "Science" stopped referring to social sciences as well - after the time that "Political Science" had been coined, and, of course, when Darwin's publications became popular. I had one prof who was particularly obsessed with defending Political Science as a real Science, even though it isn't by today's lexicon - but he would undoubtedly try to invoke the history of the term to claim it was - I think he had penis envy of the natural sciences. I found it quite ironic that he worked for one of the few Universities in the US that calls its program "Government" and not "Political Science". He's not being sarcastic and combative. He's just French. My mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 He's not being sarcastic and combative. He's just French. Finally after about ten years on this forum and hundreds of "surrender" and "coward" french jokes, i see "french" linked with the word "combative"! I did not think i'd see that day ! "Sarcasm and Disagreement" should be on our Public buildings instead of "Liberté Egalité Fraternité"!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 Back in April 2002 when Le Pen finished second in the french presidential race... After a full year of political analysis 7/7 24/24 of the presidential campaign in all the media, not ONE expert, poll, "scientist", analyst, researcher had forecasted Le Pen will be there for the second round. And the next day they were all back in their seat on national TV, on talk show radio studios, in our "opinions" newspaper pages analysing what had happened and how they should have know it was going to happen because there was that sign, that figure, that poll... French media and politics are an entirely different beast than American, and not really comparable when talking about the study of American elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 How's that different from what Wacky summarized? You don't see a difference between someone saying "I will cure your cancer" (Wacky's version), versus someone that says, curing this cancer will be long and hard, and I am humbled and cannot do it, but IF we all work together, I am confident that someday our kids can say this was the moment we began to find the cure? Which is saying I can't cure your cancer, but if we try and all work together, maybe a generation from now we can look back and see where this all started. (Cancer is obviously an example I used, not what he said, or that work hasnt already begun on cancer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Finally after about ten years on this forum and hundreds of "surrender" and "coward" french jokes, i see "french" linked with the word "combative"! I did not think i'd see that day ! "Sarcasm and Disagreement" should be on our Public buildings instead of "L'amour français pour sucer le dick d'âne" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 French media and politics are an entirely different beast than American, and not really comparable when talking about the study of American elections. Does that mean you think american politics are easier to analyse, predict, explain than the french ones? and so that american political "scientists" are more accurate than their french colleagues? ... I really doubt it. Different beasts or not, i don't think one is less complex than the other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts