Political Science

Originally posted by joe shmo
Your point is also a freightning one... Science studys systems, so engineers can manipulate/control those systems in such a way that it benefits mankind....How will learning to control/manipulate politics benefit mankind, and who are the political "engineers"?

People have been manipulating others via politics throughout recorded history whether or not they used scientific methods to do so.

Originally posted by joe shmo
Your point is also a freightning one... Science studys systems, so engineers can manipulate/control those systems in such a way that it benefits mankind....How will learning to control/manipulate politics benefit mankind, and who are the political "engineers"?

Adam Curtis has the historical answer:
YouTube

One of the most brilliant documentaries I've seen.

Originally posted by twhitehead
People have been manipulating others via politics throughout recorded history whether or not they used scientific methods to do so.

Yes, but scientific methods will undoubtedly increase the effectiveness of that manipulation.

Originally posted by Palynka
Adam Curtis has the historical answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyPzGUsYyKM

One of the most brilliant documentaries I've seen.

Yeah, I got through the first part...and It's enchanting to say the least.

Originally posted by joe shmo
Yes, but scientific methods will undoubtedly increase the effectiveness of that manipulation.

They certainly have and will continue to do so. However, I suspect that many of the most successful manipulators to date have used their own intuition / skills etc just as much as scientific methods.

What I find interesting is just how little this manipulation gets discussed, suggesting that either politicians (whether 'behind the scenes' politicians or the ones we traditionally label as such) are deliberately covering it up, or we as humans do not like to admit it to our selves / think about it.

I once saw an article about how G.W. Bush's speeches for which he was often mocked were actually very carefully thought out propaganda tools. The interesting thing, is the article was in a children's magazine. There is absolutely no doubt that it is true, yet I have never seen it reported or discussed in the mainstream media. Why?

Originally posted by twhitehead
They certainly have and will continue to do so. However, I suspect that many of the most successful manipulators to date have used their own intuition / skills etc just as much as scientific methods.

What I find interesting is just how little this manipulation gets discussed, suggesting that either politicians (whether 'behind the scenes' politicians o ...[text shortened]... hat it is true, yet I have never seen it reported or discussed in the mainstream media. Why?

If it were to be discussed in the media it would hint to the fact that the "politician" (the president)was actually just a "tool" of the propoganda machine (the media). if people the general polulation then begin to become aware on the same level as the propagandist, the propagandist could lose control.

Mainstream media is how they apply the propaganda. If people are aware of it and are capable of critical analysis it doesn't work on them very well.

Watching this video further cements my observation of the duality of everything...I have a gut feeling that its understanding will be the understanding of all existence.

On a less ominous note, real social science "engineers" are:

Military officers
Business management
Teachers
Politicians
Entertainers
Librarians
Interrogaters
Negotiators
Private Arbriters
Law Enforcement
Lawyers
Advertisers

Some more examples of more unpleasant social sciences:

Propaganda
Conquest and Imperialism
Slavery
Torture
Organized crime

Originally posted by joe shmo
Is it really science? I don't belive so, but I don't study it in any advanced courses. At any undergraduate university level, I say it should be termed political philosophy, but yet it proclaims itself to be science along with all the other "social science's"...

My professor makes little word equations, and drops some function notation here and there, ...[text shortened]... or is it just a blatent misuse of the term science?

just looking for some thoughts.

Here is a nice little paper on experimentation in political science:

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/morton/ExpChapHandbook5April06.pdf

You're right, though, that at the undergraduate level, many poly sci courses concern forms of governance and the normative assumptions that undergird those forms; it is more history and political philosophy than science. This focus tends to change as you move deeper into the discipline, in two respects: You will see courses that are purely political philosophy, and you will see courses that are primarily empirical.

Originally posted by bbarr
Here is a nice little paper on experimentation in political science:

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/morton/ExpChapHandbook5April06.pdf

Yes, and it demonstrates quite nicely why political "science" is not a science. By denying all the features which make a scientific experiment what it is, the authors show a clear lack of understanding of the scientific method. Unless your interference is not repeatable, testable, provable, transposable, it is not an experiment, it is mere self-indulgent fiddling about.

Pschaw - I've fiddled about with so many things in my life (gentlemen, get your cheap-shot cannon ready!) that by their standards, I am, amongst many others, a Rubiks Cube scientist, a book stacking scientist, and an Indesign scientist.

Yes, and that, too.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Unless your interference is not repeatable, testable, provable, transposable, it is not an experiment, it is mere self-indulgent fiddling about.

How do you propose studying a system where a large amount of variables exist?

Originally posted by amolv06
How do you propose studying a system where a large amount of variables exist?

Why should he be responsible for designing their models, shouldn't ideal models be created by the 'social scientists'?...I suspect that a large amount of variables exists in every system that is scientifically studied. However, anything thing that I've personally studied begins with the ideal (most simple model) and adds variables from there to increase precision/accuracy. It seems these 'social scientists' are starting from the most complex models and working toward an ideal model, but are coming up short in there understanding of the scientific language 'mathematics'. Or perhaphs the fields just haven't been around enough to delineate crucial variables. But I feel it is most likely gone as far as it could in the hands of phsycologists, and the real 'social science' has yet to be fully realized and will continue to be so until the general population of scientists can understand the abstract high level maths.

There are people studying cosmology, QM,...would you say these fields have large amounts of variables? And yet I would suspect that there is no question to their identities as scientists amongst anyone posting here.

Originally posted by amolv06
How do you propose studying a system where a large amount of variables exist?

I propose starting by not pretending to be scientific.

I don't care how they study politics, I care that they sully the name of science with their laughable claims.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
I propose starting by not pretending to be scientific.

I don't care how they study politics, I care that they sully the name of science with their laughable claims.

Richard

It isn't unusual for sciences to evolve from less rigorous and less empirical methodologies. Aristotelian "physics" had bodies falling at a constant speed, for example, due to a disregard for empirical, reproducible data. Maybe political "science" will follow a similar trajectory.