The Battle for Control of Political Science Education
Abstract
Quantitative analysis, formal modeling, and other forms of hard science dominate the leading journals and research institutions of American political science. To justify a hard scientific approach to the study of politics demands elaborate philosophical argument. In particular, it demands answers to three questions: What is the character of political life (the ontological question)? How and what can we know about politics (the epistemological question)? What purpose should political knowledge serve (the normative question)? Yet few of today’s hard scientists offer sophisticated answers to these questions because one by-product of their hegemony in the discipline has been the banishment of political philosophy to the margins of the curriculum. Indeed, political philosophy is the most distinguished victim of today’s “normal science.” This essay offers graduate students a program by which to test the claims of hard science in a radical manner. It demonstrates how reflection on personal experience, the study of history, and the study of philosophy offer different ways of scrutinizing the ideology of hard science. Each raises formidable challenges to the hard-scientific project.
Some see the current conflict in American political science as little more than a battle over occupational resources. It is a battle over who gets hired, who gets published, and who leads our professional associations. What meager response the current “Perestroika” protest movement has elicited from hard scientists has focused on these issues.
The conflict is partly a battle over scarce resources, but the protesters have also presented a radical critique of hard science as a means to study politics. Hard scientists have met this critique with silence. The protest will not disappear with a more equitable division of occupational spoils. Its substantive challenge, too, demands a response.
The focus of the debate is the definition of “science” as it is applied to the study of human beings. Today’s protest movement is not anti-scientific, as some adherents of the hard-scientific establishment have tried to stigmatize it. Unlike post-modern thinkers, most protesters associated with Perestroika think of themselves as scientists. But what sort of science is possible when the object of study is a human society? Science has always been a contested concept, even in the realm of the physical sciences, and it remains so today.
When this finding infringes on someone’s lifestyle or corporate interests, the reaction to the discovery becomes unfavorable. A contributing factor to the rejection of scientific findings is directly related to political affiliation. Since the 1970s, conservatives have experienced a continuous decay of trust in the scientific community. By 2010, the contrasting trust in the scientific community has become more evident, with liberals retaining more trust in them and conservatives reducing theirs. Climate science has contributed greatly to this conflict.
One of the Mongolian impacts lead to the diffusion of culture and technology, which could not have been possible without the innovative, intelligent, and unique fighting styles the Mongols used to dominate. The Mongols are commonly stereotyped as brutal and ruthless, however this amount of hegemony and destruction allowed the Mongolian Empire to successfully distribute goods to the places they conquered, which was highly impactful considering that the Mongolian Empire is...
Aldridge, Alexandra. The Scientific World View in Dystopia. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1984.
The Mongols were an influential group of people. They’re rule reached the far reaches of the globe even reaching places in Europe. The Mongol impact is clearly seen in the Persian and Chinese societies. Although it was the Mongols who took over both these societies, they still differed in many aspects.
Genghis Khan’s leadership, the Mongols were simply a group of diverse tribes. Constantly hostile towards China, the Mongols went through the Bronze Age and Iron Age as separate tribes. However, during the 12th and 13th centuries, this would change. Thought to be born in 1155 or 1162, Temujin (later known as Chinggis and Genghis Khan) was one of six siblings and a violent nomad. Coincidently, he had a blood clot in his arm - to the Mongols, this was a sign meaning he was destined to become a great leader.
Recent work has indicated that while certain sorts of science were annihilated under the Nazi administration, different sorts thrived. Sciences of a connected nature were particularly empowered, as were sciences that fit inside the bigger system of Nazi isolation and annihi...
The Mongols left quite an impression on the world with their legacy, there are many
Danziger, James N. Understanding the Political World: A Comparative Introduction to Political Science. New Jersey: Pearson, 2013. Print.
Pinker first notes the ways in which scientific and humanitarian study is socially driven and defined by beliefs and cultural norms of the times. As a result, Pinker argues, the current way the Blank Slate mentality has infiltrated societal
- Look over scholarly articles, books, etc and determine what respected political scientists would have done
Hofstadter, Richard. The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It. New York: Vintage, 1989.
The Mongol empire was the strongest during the 14th century out of any others in the world. This rise to power came largely as a direct result from their new ruler who would later be known as Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan is revered as one of the greatest military leaders in all of History. His numerous and at the time unheard of military strategies caught everyone he fought by surprise which may have been the most important factor. There are many factors that made Genghis Khan’s empire so successful such as the element of surprise, the unity of smaller tribes throughout Mongolia and the training of individual soldiers.
Shapiro, Ian, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, eds. Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge ; Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
Pollack, Eileen. “Why Are There Still So Few Women in Science?” The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Oct. 2013. Web. 05 Mar. 2014.