Political Theory versus Scientific Theory

Aristotle and Niccolò Machiavelli were two great minds from completely different times, both having rather different views on the world, that touched on many similar points throughout their respective works Politics and Machiavelli’s various writings. This occurred because Machiavelli was illustrating his positions directly against Aristotle’s theories, which allows for an interesting comparison between the two’s opinions on a variety of issues. While Politics is more of a discussion for the populous and The Prince was specifically made as a sort of guidebook for the future ruling class, they can still be compared based upon their similar topics of discussion regarding political goals and the opposing points that need to be avoided. This combined with The Discourses, which was an analysis of the Roman republic and why it was so successful, provide a rather comprehensive view of Machiavelli’s core beliefs. The concept of differing worldviews is key to understanding the similarities and differences between the two as they come from very different basic places of opinion when regarding the overall goal of politics.

Pseudoscience occurs when a topic that in itself is not scientific is treated as a science. Despite society’s general disregard for the demarcation point between science and non-science there are real, everyday consequences to accepting these fields into our scientific domain. So why are certain theories classified as scientific? On one hand there is an ignorance and apathy in regard to this demarcation, on the other hand pseudo-sciences are accepted as sciences because of the appeal they hold in intrigue and comfort. The situation is made more complicated by science that is practiced in an unscientific matter.

An Analysis of Qualitative Research Methods Qualitative political and historical researchers seek to analyze social or political phenomena from multiple perspectives in order to gain an in-depth understanding of their research topic, as well as insight into the broader scope of their disciplines. They accomplish these goals by using case-specific methods that are designed to generate knowledge and yet are limiting in that same area. Because of their selectively designed character, each of these methods will neither generate a multi-dimensional analysis of a given research topic, nor address the serious validity issues often associated with qualitative research. Nonetheless, they are productive approaches for evaluating the "truth" carried by certain hypotheses and well-structured for qualitative analysis. Though they have apparent weaknesses, these methods do indeed satisfy the major goals of qualitative research.

I will then go on to show that this political parable, placed as it is at the center of a philosophical work in which education is explicitly at issue, suggests some essential interconnections between philosophy, politics, and education. The discussion between Socrates, the dialectician, and Protagoras, the speech-maker, began in a friendly fashion (317e), but by 334d it has broken down entirely. Socrates’s elenchus has exposed some problems in Protagoras’s position, and Protagoras seems to realize that things go better for him when he makes a speech (as at 320d-328d). When he extricates himself from a tight spot into which Socrates has backed him by giving a short speech (334a-c) which brings him applause, Socrates realizes that Protagoras does not wish to engage in dialectic.

It is not sagacious to tolerate use of marijuana, especially when others are forced into rehabilitation. Medical pot may seem like a brilliant concept, but it is really just the deception into the destruction of health.

Our brain is hard-wired in way that it filters the “facts” we choose to belief, however, this process is generally based on our preconceived views about what we see as reality or as matter of fact. The only exception to this happens when the scientific community makes a new discovery, or a new paradigm emerges. In this case, people uncritically allow facts to drive their be... ... middle of paper ... ...way. Here lies one of the chief differences between the natural and political disciplines. Science does not rush to make claims.

Science and its connection to the outside world- that is, the social and political spheres -has several important implications. The values that society places upon various issues is one of the biggest factors in deciding what scientific research will pursue. Some, like Thomas Kuhn, have argued for the value-free ideal within science, and promoted the function of autonomous science. Others, such as Heather Douglas, put forth that science can (and should) be directly influenced by the values society while still maintaining its status as a source of new, reliable knowledge. These two approaches to science are at complete odds with each other, and so they both cannot be absolutely correct.

The internal structures of a state are paramount to such an atmosphere and when they lead a different style of relationship with other states, the theory of perpetual peace fails to hold any water. The behavior of states can only be explained... ... middle of paper ... ... the recent past, the idea of global security has been used as a reason for war. For example, the USA engagement in war against Afghanistan and Iraq was based on the argument of promoting peace in the name of democracy. This is a perfect example of how the interpretation of democracy can lead to hostility among nations. In conclusion, the theory of perpetual democracy is based on tangible pillar but upon analysis, relativity, uncertainty and vagueness present themselves hence the criticism.

Additionally, the example of liberalism, Christianity, and socialism, among others, prove that ideas and ideologies can really change the world – as was already mentioned, a core belief of constructivism. The superiority of constructivism may be seen in that it is capable of explaining realism, while realism cannot do the same back (Lisinksi). Also, as my International Politics professor once said after another student asked what constructivism is, “No one really knows,” meaning there is much to be accounted for in the theory since it is simply a consideration of ideas and human interpretation and consciousness as they relate to international relations. I like that. Sometimes it’s better not knowing.

Socrate's First Accusers and Athenian Law Of all confrontations in political philosophy, the biggest is the conflict between philosophy and politics. The problem remains making philosophy friendly to politics. The questioning of authoritative opinions is not easily accomplished nor is that realm of philosophy - the pursuit of wisdom. Socrates was the instigator of the conflict. While the political element takes place within opinions about political life, Socrates asks the question "What is the best regime and how should I live?"