As many scholars from around the world are studying political sciences and a large number of work is related with political science, a debate has been rising and taking place on whether or not they are legitimate, and if so in political or/and science. Can we consider them political and/or scientists? If not, how can one consider their work? Can one give any meaning to why they are studying or working in this particular domain? Should the word science and scientist be reconsidered as many tend to think that politics is a soft science, meaning not reliable or with an inconstant method, while others argue that looking through its epistemology, politics has its own and righteous place in science hence adding that although being considered a soft …show more content…
However when referring to political sciences, Roy Bhaskar argues ‘it is the nature of the object that determines the form of its science’ (From Hay, Colin (2002) Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction, Chapter 2, ‘What’s ‘Political’ About Political Science’, The limits of naturalism, p.85). Thus, science has been separated in two distinctive class: ‘soft science’ and ‘hard science’. Taking in account that everyone is part of the same world, the ‘hard’ scientists will study molecules, geology, physics, mathematics… whereas the ‘soft’ scientists will study politics, economy, cultures, societies…. Nevertheless most ‘hard’ scientists, which can also be referred to as natural scientists, will argue that the two sciences are taking part in two different worlds. This is mainly due to the fact that “the nature of the ‘economic’ and the ‘political’ is different after Keynes and Marx in a way that the ‘physical’ and the ‘natural’ is not after Newton or Einstein” (From Hay, Colin (2002) Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction, Chapter …show more content…
If so, are the scientists constituting the worlds or world using the same methods? Evidently to be considered a science as seen before one has to have a regular method with experiments and results independent to the time and place, which also need to be repeatable. Jared Diamond in ‘Soft sciences are often harder than hard sciences’ explains how “the task of operationalizing is inevitably more difficult and less exact in the soft sciences, because there are so many uncontrolled variables” as well as no such thing as a lab in a socially, politically and culturally continuously changing world. Howbeit, the naturalists would argue that there is a “unity of method between the natural and social sciences” (Bhaskar, 1989: 67). In addition, the positivists argue that there are no fundamental differences between natural and socially constructed world. They use the same tools and logic in the same manner through the use of ontology, epistemology and methodology. In the socially constructed world the scientists observe behaviors of political actors and through different setting observe what could be referred to in the natural world as an experience. Their goal as scientists is to explain and predict the world that surrounds them by discovering laws that occur over and over. To do so two methods can be used: induction and deduction. The principle of induction is explained in Hay’s Political Analysis, where “reality does indeed presents itself to
Earlier Science was treated as an institution but now, it includes many things like "scientific experiments, "theories" etc. The authors argue that this knowledge should viewed in terms of "socially constructed" and not the one known as "scientific truth". This article points that in the social constructivist view, the 'science' it is just another system of knowledge which contains empirical researches and studies. It is basically concerned with what is "truth", how it has emerged, accepted and explained in social domain. ...
Furthermore, to think that science is immune to the power establishment, one must assume that it is in no way affected by government or companies with money to spend. This, like the assumption that science is neutral, is also incorrect. In order for a scientist to be funded in his research, he must submit proposals to those power establishments that have money. These powerful companies and governments will only fund those projects they deem important to their interests and goals. In this way, science is extremely political in its effort to obtain money and support because it must please those power establishments who are, by nature, political.
What do you think of when you hear or see the word “science”; test tubes, Einstein, Space? Science is “generally taken as meaning either (a) the exact sciences, such as chemistry, physics, etc., or (b) a method of thought which obtains verifiable results by reasoning logically from observed fact” (Orwell). Scientists are those who study science by scientific method. These “men of science”, which Orwell describes as “a biologist, and astronomer, perhaps a psychologist or a mathematician”, “work by means of induction and deduction, and that by the help of these operations, they, in a sort of sense, wring from Nature certain other things, which are called natural laws, and causes, and that out of these, by some cunning skill of their own, they build up hypotheses and theories” (Huxley).
Religion and politics should never have control of science, instead they should use science to help explain their own goals. Science should be used as a way challenging old beliefs and help clear out fact from fiction. At the same time though, science should challenge itself so it can stay true to its main point of challenging old dogmas as Carl Sagan said in his article. This includes the introduction of the heliocentric model and the debate about pluto being a planet, that ended up changing view points on many
I am not sure that political scientists, or the American public, would be convinced that the “accumulation of knowledge” alone constitutes science. In my opinion, this is exemplified by the terms hard and soft science. Hard and soft science rely on the scientific method and the “accumulation of knowledge.” The difference between the two lies in precision and objectivity. Political science does use the scientific method and has seen improvements in methodology which has increased precision in the field. Yet, I am not sure that it is possible for the political scientist to divorce themselves completely from their biases. These biases can affect the objectivity of the study. Political science being a so called soft science makes me rethink the idea that political science is a science. Soft science seems to be a lesser science, or maybe even a non-science. In reality, I think that political science is absolutely scientific, but I am not sold on the concept that it is science. I would have liked to have seen Riker ([1940] 1993) address these concerns more fully as this seems to be a more difficult question with bigger implications for how the field is viewed, than the simple idea of the “accumulation of
A.J. Ayer, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn. "Science and Non science: Defining the Boundary." Part 1. Pages 6-19. [...]
Generally, science is a hotly discussed and vehemently debated topic. It is difficult to achieve consensus in science, considering the fact that ideas are diverse about even science definition, leave alone the true interpretations and meaning of scientific experiments, philosophies and discoveries. However, these arguments, disagreements as well as continuous trials to find a better reasoning, logic and explanation are exactly what have always been driving science progress from art to art form. It is worth noting that, in Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction, the Author-Samir Okasha explore various way of looking at science via the prism of life by citing a variety of scientific experiments, and providing examples from history of science.
Hull, DL 1988. Science as a Process : An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science . The University of Chicago Press . Chicago .
...g organism that evolves over time and combines various different processes (in our case ideas, beliefs, values, etc…) in an efficient manner to produce a field that effectively answers many problems that we have about the world. To me, It is a given fact that scientists are humans as well, humans who bring with them a wide range of beliefs, experiences, knowledge, etc…. and the way that science works is through a process of all of these various beliefs, experiences, knowledge, etc…. coming together to try and find a solution that in the end is void of such subjective matters. Every scientist interprets data in a different way, and for science to make progress all scientist have to agree on a common conclusion to such data. As Longino explains, after peer review, criticisms, and revision the final product is a solution that explains the world in an objective manner.
Science has played a significant role in the development of society. Other world views, such as Hum...
Anything that can be studied is absolutely considered a science. When people think of science and the scientific method they most often think of chemicals. Human experiment’s can also be conducted and considered scientific. The scientific method can be used to study people. Simply start by asking a question, doing background research, and then constructing a hypothesis. When studying people or their culture you can absolutely start with these simple steps, therefore using science to study these people. After determining your hypothesis, you can test it with an experiment, record your results and form a conclusion. “Science is the best system yet devised for reducing subjective bias, error, untruths, lies, and frauds.” (Harris, 1994, Pg. 6) Harris states that using science is they best way to prevent errors or miscalculations. We use science everyday; to assess every situation, and every problem that we have, even when we don’t think we a...
The issue shall discuss the various differences between science and other types of knowledge and discuss the argument whether the science can rely without the separate theories posted by non-scientific educational bodies. ...
The term “natural sciences” applies to any science observed and examined in the natural world, specifically any information that can be processed and tested through scientific exam...
I feel that challenges to success in the social science are not similar to the challenges of the natural sciences. The main purpose for my statement is natural sciences base theories on concrete structural forms. Changes are much slower and subjects or matters are constant. Another factor is natural science research is primarily performed in a lab where conditions are more controllable. The similarities between natural science and social science are which they are both observed specific phenomena, only observation for social scientist can be divided as observation, asking question, studying written document. But natural scientist is not able to use those ways because metals, chemicals and other materialistic matters can not be studied like people.
Science is never simply observing and gathering facts. It is analyzing the facts to find repeating patterns, to then formulate theories and reasons. For example, in biology, to study the growth of plants in different environments would require experiments and tests to collect specific data to prove a hypothesis and determine the variables that affect the outcome. In sociology, to study the rising foreclosure rate in a neighborhood would require a researcher to observe the everyday life of members, conduct large-scale surveys, process...