From the dawn of the 20th century, science has been the "it" word. Soon, anything academic had to be labelled "science," even if it did not approach the definition of science.
It is no surprise, then, that this university, established in the golden age of this etymological disaster, would dole out department names inconsistent with reality. I'm thinking mainly of the Department of Political Science, although the misnomer of Social Science is just as aggravating.
Science gives us an image of unquestioned authority and unflinching detachment. Research scientists, outside the scientific community, are treated as modern day oracles. It is only natural for academic departments to want this kind of respect, but the label often comes at the cost of accuracy.
Social sciences, for the most part, are not sciences at all. Some psychology certainly deserves the title, but the label is primarily unwarranted. The scientific method is certainly a powerful technique for observing a range of phenomena, however, applying the scientific method is not enough to make something a science.
First of all, in the natural sciences, experimental variables can be placed and controlled in an idealized setting. This is not possible in social science.
At times experimentation has been tried, but ethical considerations denied the experiments' true validity. The most famous example of what happens when people are treated like variables is a case of a mock prison at Harvard University. A psychologist wanted to experiment on social control, so he divided a group of college student volunteers to run a mock prison. Guards and prisoners were chosen at random and, to make a long story short, the experiment was stopped because the guards were excessively cruel to the inmates.
The second elemental aspect of science is that it provides us with technology. Political Science in particular has produced little technology of late. It has co-opted technology from mathematics and statistics in one of its main tools, the public poll.
Lastly, science makes prediction a possibility. If one listened to American political pundits two or three weeks ago, John Kerry's victory in the Iowa caucuses would seemed like a miracle. Politics are simply too chaotic to conform to scientific methods.
The most conspicuous technology other than the public poll is the development of different voting systems, from first-past-the-post to more proportional systems of representation. These systems haven't even had a fraction of the impact of technology brought forward by science. Furthermore, there are no signs these novel systems actually improve the state.
I think it is an insult to the study of politics to call it science, the department should be renamed Political Studies. We investigate politics; we may take measurements from time to time but that fact in no way qualifies us as scientists. Not because scientists are superior, but because the study of politics is, more often than not, separate from scientific inquiry.
Politics are too ephemeral, too arbitrary, and too complex for it to yield to the power of the scientific method. The laws of nature are constant, while the laws humanity has made for itself are constant in only a few cases. Even the most constant prohibition, murder, is often overridden.
In short, we should reinstall sincerity in our academic community and realize politics are only partially accessible to science, but still worth studying.
Comments
Politics may not be an exact science, but it isn't exactly not a science either. John Kerry's victory in Iowa can be explained easily...Howard Dean, in his original form, is an angry "Raj-Against-The-Machine"-esque candidate. He opposed the war on Iraq...etc., etc., etc. In other words, he's a tad too far to the left, hobnobbing with those danged lily-livered French and Germans...you see what I mean?
You don't need a scientific theory to explain this one...Dean hasn't just put himself out as an anti-everything, he's also put himself as saying things at the wrong time and shooting himself in the foot. That's simple "idiotism" at its absolute best (or worst).
Political Science isn't all about looking at American politics and voting systems...AND not all theories are completely foolproof, and this just happens to be the exception. But then again, who expected a little-known Arkansas lawyer named William Clinton to come out of nowhere in 1992, win the Democratic nomination, and go on to serve 2 terms in the White House? Come on...did you expect it?
What I argue in the piece is that politics is not susceptible to the scientific method. Furthermore, I argue that Political Science does not have the same properties as the natural sciences. It doesn't develop technology, it is rarely correct in its predictions and it is nearly impossible to perform experimentation in a way that corresponds with the natural sciences.
The Kerry example is to demonstrate the unpredictability of political phenemona, due to a lack of information. Your final paragraph just serves to illustrate my point. Predictions are nearly impossible to make, in both international and domestic politics. Sure democracies never fight each other and democracies are without out famine, but after 400 years of modern political science you would think we would have more generelizable statements than that, wouldn't you?
I think the main problem with your article is your very simplistic and narrow definition of the word "science." I've heard the same line of argument by those who feel that individuals with a PhD shouldn't be called "Doctors" since they don't practice medicine.
You need to broaden your definition of "science" to beyond what was taught in high-school science classes. These are the natural sciences, but certainly not the only thing that can be called science.
These disciplines can in fact use the scientific method. Political science (just as social science, etc) isn't an area of study devoted to predicting outcomes of elections. What you're thinking of is a political analyst, which you rightfully identify as concerning itself with the unpredictable. But these distinctions are simply not the same thing.
When political or social scientists study phemenon, they can run experiments, must adhere to strict standards and follow much of the prided "scientific method" we've all been taught about since gradeschool.
Flip through a social science or political science journal. You will see studies that use critical research methods, and that stand up to the test of scientific standards of validity and reliability. From massive content analyses to detailed case studies, many of these examples have every right to be called a science.