BS Poli Science > BA Poli Science? Forum

[DearCan]

There is no "science" in political science any more than there is "engineering" in sanitation engineering.

Science = the development of theories using the scientific method. What would you categorize polisci as anyway?

I assume "a joke" is not the answer you're looking for?

LOL @ the idea that political "science" uses the scientific method. Any more than sanitation engineering uses engineering principles.

damn you people harsh, you better not be saying these things as econ majors or something. you could have gone a little softer and just been like "baby stepping stone for law school." There are def some classes that are jokes for poli sci, but the same can pretty much be said of any major (though its more frequent in polisci than the hard science majors). If you ever read a poli sci article or book, its pretty apparent that the scientific method is used. Also, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be an engineer to design the sanitation system for a city.

I'm no expert by any means, but I thought the scientific method required that findings of a certain experiment must be repeatable and predictable. Studies in political science work with patterns, sure, but findings that can predict future events? Don't we wish.

[capitalacq]

lol @ scientific method

[Holly Golightly]

damn you people harsh, you better not be saying these things as econ majors or something. you could have gone a little softer and just been like "baby stepping stone for law school." There are def some classes that are jokes for poli sci, but the same can pretty much be said of any major (though its more frequent in polisci than the hard science majors). If you ever read a poli sci article or book, its pretty apparent that the scientific method is used. Also, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be an engineer to design the sanitation system for a city.

<----- joke of a major AND a poli sci minor. Doesn't make it any less lulzy.

[capitalacq]

damn you people harsh, you better not be saying these things as econ majors or something. you could have gone a little softer and just been like "baby stepping stone for law school." There are def some classes that are jokes for poli sci, but the same can pretty much be said of any major (though its more frequent in polisci than the hard science majors). If you ever read a poli sci article or book, its pretty apparent that the scientific method is used. Also, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be an engineer to design the sanitation system for a city.

<----- joke of a major AND a poli sci minor. Doesn't make it any less lulzy.

also stuck at a school that's not competent enough to bluebook yet

[DearCan]

damn you people harsh, you better not be saying these things as econ majors or something. you could have gone a little softer and just been like "baby stepping stone for law school." There are def some classes that are jokes for poli sci, but the same can pretty much be said of any major (though its more frequent in polisci than the hard science majors). If you ever read a poli sci article or book, its pretty apparent that the scientific method is used. Also, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be an engineer to design the sanitation system for a city.

<----- joke of a major AND a poli sci minor. Doesn't make it any less lulzy.

also stuck at a school that's not competent enough to bluebook yet

Substitute?

[rayiner]

damn you people harsh, you better not be saying these things as econ majors or something. you could have gone a little softer and just been like "baby stepping stone for law school." There are def some classes that are jokes for poli sci, but the same can pretty much be said of any major (though its more frequent in polisci than the hard science majors). If you ever read a poli sci article or book, its pretty apparent that the scientific method is used. Also, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be an engineer to design the sanitation system for a city.

<----- joke of a major AND a poli sci minor. Doesn't make it any less lulzy.

also stuck at a school that's not competent enough to bluebook yet

Substitute?

All Wood.

[2011Law]

I'm no expert by any means, but I thought the scientific method required that findings of a certain experiment must be repeatable and predictable. Studies in political science work with patterns, sure, but findings that can predict future events? Don't we wish.

Without looking at a single particular race, you can estimate that the Dems will only have 221 seats in the next Congress (from a formula made by Tufte at yale). Also, if the economy doesn't pick up and Obama's approval rating doesn't surge by 2012, don't expect him to be re-elected. You can also predict individual political moves by states/political actors, which is fairly obvious (you don't expect Obama to nominate a conservative judge). One last prediction; Cuba will not open up politically, and only open minimally economically (and this prediction was made before fidel made his recent statements... just based on the Castro regime type, strength of civil society, and some other stuff).

[theredman100]

BS's are always more prestigious than BA's. Whether the addcoms will weigh them more favorably, I dont know. It can only help - that is for sure.

[DearCan]

I'm no expert by any means, but I thought the scientific method required that findings of a certain experiment must be repeatable and predictable. Studies in political science work with patterns, sure, but findings that can predict future events? Don't we wish.

Without looking at a single particular race, you can estimate that the Dems will only have 221 seats in the next Congress (from a formula made by Tufte at yale). Also, if the economy doesn't pick up and Obama's approval rating doesn't surge by 2012, don't expect him to be re-elected. You can also predict individual political moves by states/political actors, which is fairly obvious (you don't expect Obama to nominate a conservative judge). One last prediction; Cuba will not open up politically, and only open minimally economically (and this prediction was made before fidel made his recent statements... just based on the Castro regime type, strength of civil society, and some other stuff).

I don't mean to be an ass, but I'd bet money your lag time in posts was spent looking this stuff up on the interwebs.

Maybe I should have been more clear in my earlier post. I should have said reliably predict.

Estimations and conjectures =/= reliable predictions. They are speculations based on past patterns. Political science gets its data largely from history, sciences that use the scientific method don't.

[soaponarope]

Both are equally worthless...

[deadhipsters]

I'm no expert by any means, but I thought the scientific method required that findings of a certain experiment must be repeatable and predictable. Studies in political science work with patterns, sure, but findings that can predict future events? Don't we wish.

Without looking at a single particular race, you can estimate that the Dems will only have 221 seats in the next Congress (from a formula made by Tufte at yale). Also, if the economy doesn't pick up and Obama's approval rating doesn't surge by 2012, don't expect him to be re-elected. You can also predict individual political moves by states/political actors, which is fairly obvious (you don't expect Obama to nominate a conservative judge). One last prediction; Cuba will not open up politically, and only open minimally economically (and this prediction was made before fidel made his recent statements... just based on the Castro regime type, strength of civil society, and some other stuff).

I don't mean to be an ass, but I'd bet money your lag time in posts was spent looking this stuff up on the interwebs.

Maybe I should have been more clear in my earlier post. I should have said reliably predict.

Estimations and conjectures =/= reliable predictions. They are speculations based on past patterns. Political science gets its data largely from history, sciences that use the scientific method don't.

Eh, for the most part that is true. There is some interesting work being done in game theory and there is the correlates of war project, which is very scientific. However, most of the data that is collected is subject to interpretation in way that biological data simply is not. Political science is mostly about predicting human behavior, which is nearly impossible to do.

[2011Law]

I don't mean to be an ass, but I'd bet money your lag time in posts was spent looking this stuff up on the interwebs.

Maybe I should have been more clear in my earlier post. I should have said reliably predict.

Estimations and conjectures =/= reliable predictions. They are speculations based on past patterns. Political science gets its data largely from history, sciences that use the scientific method don't.

Damn, you got me .
Anyway, I don't mean to be an ass, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Science gets its data solely from history. Sorry thats actually an exaggeration, really just about any discipline has to use both empirical data (what you call history) as well as logic to come up with practical stuff to say.

[2011Law]

Political science is mostly about predicting human behavior, which is nearly impossible to do.

No.

[deadhipsters]

Political science is mostly about predicting human behavior, which is nearly impossible to do.

No.

Care to elaborate on that champ?

[rayiner]

I'm no expert by any means, but I thought the scientific method required that findings of a certain experiment must be repeatable and predictable. Studies in political science work with patterns, sure, but findings that can predict future events? Don't we wish.

Without looking at a single particular race, you can estimate that the Dems will only have 221 seats in the next Congress (from a formula made by Tufte at yale). Also, if the economy doesn't pick up and Obama's approval rating doesn't surge by 2012, don't expect him to be re-elected. You can also predict individual political moves by states/political actors, which is fairly obvious (you don't expect Obama to nominate a conservative judge). One last prediction; Cuba will not open up politically, and only open minimally economically (and this prediction was made before fidel made his recent statements... just based on the Castro regime type, strength of civil society, and some other stuff).

I LOL'ed so hard I nearly chocked on my drink. That's educated guessing, not the scientific method.

PSA: If it doesn't involve rigorous mathematical analysis, it's almost certainly not science.

[Kswizzie]

I don't mean to be an ass, but I'd bet money your lag time in posts was spent looking this stuff up on the interwebs.

Maybe I should have been more clear in my earlier post. I should have said reliably predict.

Estimations and conjectures =/= reliable predictions. They are speculations based on past patterns. Political science gets its data largely from history, sciences that use the scientific method don't.

The very premise of political science is that it applies the scientific method to political phenomenon to further our understanding of politics. Your "it doesn't use the scientific method" argument simply doesn't hold water. You can take issue with the way political scientists collect data, but if you read any article in a reputable political science journal it is clear that they apply the scientific method to the way they conduct research.

To the person that says it doesn't involve rigorous mathematical analysis your wrong.
It does. Look at the GRE quant requirements for Poli Sci Phd programs and the classes that Poli Sci Phds take at those schools

[deadhipsters]

I'm no expert by any means, but I thought the scientific method required that findings of a certain experiment must be repeatable and predictable. Studies in political science work with patterns, sure, but findings that can predict future events? Don't we wish.

Without looking at a single particular race, you can estimate that the Dems will only have 221 seats in the next Congress (from a formula made by Tufte at yale). Also, if the economy doesn't pick up and Obama's approval rating doesn't surge by 2012, don't expect him to be re-elected. You can also predict individual political moves by states/political actors, which is fairly obvious (you don't expect Obama to nominate a conservative judge). One last prediction; Cuba will not open up politically, and only open minimally economically (and this prediction was made before fidel made his recent statements... just based on the Castro regime type, strength of civil society, and some other stuff).

I LOL'ed so hard I nearly chocked on my drink. That's educated guessing, not the scientific method.

PSA: If it doesn't involve rigorous mathematical analysis, it's almost certainly not science.

MIT has one of the most prestigious Political Science programs in the country. It is math focused- statistics, game theory, etc. It is “scientific” But it is also mostly bullshit, IMO. Since most of all their data sets are based on assumptions. How can one really determine the utility of war? Give me a break. I wish I majored in engineering…

[facetious]

Ok, quick plug for poli sci. I am not going to defend it as a real science in the least. I will say, however, that a lot of comparative politics is heavily heavily reliant on statistics. Underlying these stats, of course, is one's research method, the data itself which is of human behavior. As with any social science, this type of data always face some limitations. But, a lot of comparative politics compares institutions and voting behaviors across different populations and states, trying to gather as much quantifiable data as possible and control extraneous variables to find causation, or at the very least correlation, based on what the research question is. In that respect, it can be replicated - that's the point of using stats. It creates a methodology and shows why this particular variable(s) is important for predicting future behavior. Of course, stats are only as good as the data, and underlying a lot of research in the field is an underlying normative theory, which most likely has a detrimental effect on the quality of the statistical analysis. At the undergrad level, I'll be the first to admit that this type of comparative work doesn't really happen. It is primarily at the graduate/Ph.D level where heavy stats, methodologies, and the like become fundamental to almost any argument in the field.

I agree that a lot of the theory in poli sci, particularly in international relations, is very normative and lacks the type of statistical rigor of comparative politics. But, I believe it is a tad disingenuous to the field to simply write it off as fluff.

end rant -->back to civ pro

[DearCan]

I don't mean to be an ass, but I'd bet money your lag time in posts was spent looking this stuff up on the interwebs.

Maybe I should have been more clear in my earlier post. I should have said reliably predict.

Estimations and conjectures =/= reliable predictions. They are speculations based on past patterns. Political science gets its data largely from history, sciences that use the scientific method don't.

Damn, you got me .
Anyway, I don't mean to be an ass, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Science gets its data solely from history. Sorry thats actually an exaggeration, really just about any discipline has to use both empirical data (what you call history) as well as logic to come up with practical stuff to say.

I said I wasn't an expert. And science doesn't get its data solely from history. That's a ridiculous notion and if you think about it real hard I think you'll come to the same conclusion. If you're studying wastewater management to effectively minimize contaminations, the only thing that history provides you is what DIDN'T work (assuming there is something new to be discovered). It's up to you to come up with new formulas for making this waste safe for environmental introduction. If none of this makes sense I apologize. Drinks + 36 hours sleepless.

[DearCan]

I don't mean to be an ass, but I'd bet money your lag time in posts was spent looking this stuff up on the interwebs.

Maybe I should have been more clear in my earlier post. I should have said reliably predict.

Estimations and conjectures =/= reliable predictions. They are speculations based on past patterns. Political science gets its data largely from history, sciences that use the scientific method don't.

Damn, you got me .
Anyway, I don't mean to be an ass, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Science gets its data solely from history. Sorry thats actually an exaggeration, really just about any discipline has to use both empirical data (what you call history) as well as logic to come up with practical stuff to say.

Oh I forgot to point out this issue. Empirical data is quantifiable data, not necessarily historical data.

[2011Law]

Political science is mostly about predicting human behavior, which is nearly impossible to do.

No.

Care to elaborate on that champ?

Political science is not mostly about predicting human behavior. Predicting behavior is not nearly impossible to do.

If it doesn't involve rigorous mathematical analysis, it's almost certainly not science.

No.

MIT has one of the most prestigious Political Science programs in the country. It is math focused- statistics, game theory, etc. It is “scientific” But it is also mostly bullshit, IMO. Since most of all their data sets are based on assumptions. How can one really determine the utility of war? Give me a break. I wish I majored in engineering…

I don't know what to say about this post. I'll go with, wat?

[Kswizzie]

MIT has one of the most prestigious Political Science programs in the country. It is math focused- statistics, game theory, etc. It is “scientific” But it is also mostly bullshit, IMO. Since most of all their data sets are based on assumptions. How can one really determine the utility of war? Give me a break. I wish I majored in engineering…

This is to say that engineers learn things that are particularly useful. For the most part all the engineers that I know, people that have graduated from my school (one of the top engineering schools in the country) do things at their jobs that are only barely related to anything they learned in school.

Additionally, the stuff they learned in school was a total pain in the ass to learn. They were told that the point of there engineering degree was to get them to think like engineers. They had to be taught mostly everything about how to do there job on the job (sound like any other profession you've heard of).

[DearCan]

Political science is mostly about predicting human behavior, which is nearly impossible to do.

No.

Care to elaborate on that champ?

Give him 20-30 minutes. Let him do his internet research. He'll be back with loads of support.

[2011Law]

If none of this makes sense I apologize. Drinks + 36 hours sleepless.

Apology accepted.

Oh I forgot to point out this issue. Empirical data is quantifiable data, not necessarily historical data.

I'm done with this thread.

[DearCan]

Political science is mostly about predicting human behavior, which is nearly impossible to do.

No.

Care to elaborate on that champ?

Political science is not mostly about predicting human behavior. Predicting behavior is not nearly impossible to do.

If it doesn't involve rigorous mathematical analysis, it's almost certainly not science.

No.

MIT has one of the most prestigious Political Science programs in the country. It is math focused- statistics, game theory, etc. It is “scientific” But it is also mostly bullshit, IMO. Since most of all their data sets are based on assumptions. How can one really determine the utility of war? Give me a break. I wish I majored in engineering…

I don't know what to say about this post. I'll go with, wat?

You added 100% of nothing to the discussion with this post. "This isn't that" "No" "That isn't this". Evidence please. Many of us are aspiring law students. Enlighten us with your powers of persuasion.