On Political Science… SCIENCE
One of my teacher’s from high school recently posted this as his Facebook status:
[Insert name] believes that political science is to science like astrology is to astronomy.
Strange SAT-like wording aside is this point valid? Is Political Science some arguably made up crap, or does it have the right to be called a science?
I pulled out a trusty dictionary and found the word “science.” This is what I found:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Political science easily falls into definition 2, 5, 6, and it fits some of the others to varying degrees. Not a good enough answer? Let’s look at some similarities between ‘the Natural Sciences’ and Political science.
Theorists. The Natural Sciences have their theorists just like Political science. Look no further than Niccolo Machiavelli. His work sounds a lot like this:
Empirical method is generally taken to mean the collection of data on which to base a theory or derive a conclusion in science.
So, what is the collection of data in the case of Machiavelli? Machiavelli observed other past leaders – he was never a leader himself. Using this data he wrote The Prince, a book which outlines Machiavelli’s theory of the perfect way to rule. (I should note, I am assuming that Machiavelli did not intend The Prince to be a satire.)
“Well that’s not testable.” That is 100% true, you can’t always tests hypothesis in ‘natural science’ either. Thus, the argument that ‘because you can’t preform concrete experiments it’s not a science’ is totally irrelevant, and short-sighted. We accept truth in some scientific matters that aren’t exactly testable. Evolution is all but 100% accepted among the scientific community, there’s proof that suggests it’s existence, but how do you test it? Is evolution not a part of biology because a concrete experiment can’t be held?
I believe that this point erases the hang up of ‘you can’t test hypothesis because it’s already happened.’ I could make the hypothesis “if Lorenzo Medici followed Machiavelli’s advice he would not have fallen as soon as he did if ever.” Can I go back in time to test this? No. What about the hypothesis “humans evolved from apes.” We have evidence to suggest this is true, and only that. Just like the fact that we have evidence that leader’s who admired the prince were some of the strongest dictator’s and conquerors of their times. (Napolean and Stalin come to mind.)
Also, just to prove Political Science is win… My PoliSci teacher loves comics and super heroes. I <3 that. Also, he’s Spanish so he has a hilariously awesome accent.
Now here’s my challenge. Tell me why it’s not a science.
Moral of this post: Political science is a science.
