Originally posted by joe shmoPeople have been manipulating others via politics throughout recorded history whether or not they used scientific methods to do so.
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"?
Originally posted by joe shmoAdam Curtis has the historical answer:
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"?
One of the most brilliant documentaries I've seen.
Originally posted by joe shmoThey 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.
Yes, but scientific methods will undoubtedly increase the effectiveness of that manipulation.
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 twhiteheadIf 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.
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?
1 edit
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 shmoHere is a nice little paper on experimentation in political science:
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.
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.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by bbarrYes, 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.
Here is a nice little paper on experimentation in political science:
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/morton/ExpChapHandbook5April06.pdf
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 amolv06Why 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.
How do you propose studying a system where a large amount of variables exist?
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.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by amolv06I propose starting by not pretending to be scientific.
How do you propose studying a system where a large amount of variables exist?
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 BlueIt 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.
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