I heard former secretary of labor Robert Reich speak earlier this evening. He described the etymology of the word "politics:" poli = many; tics = small, sucking parasites


funny guy, banal lecture

___________________
agenda:


[Dark Disco|Frozen Balearic|Gay Biker-House| Boogie-Trance|Heavy Electronica|Soft-Goth]

okay, politics and science are two completely different things. True, both are analytical, but in different ways. Science requires STONE COLD facts that everybody knows is true. These facts are the basis for development, nothing can be "interpreted". In politics, most things are interpreted. Facts can be bent, and distorted to suit that politican's needs.
Science and politics is a dangerous game my friend.

Hi, As a fellow political scientists I can say their is no such thing.

They should call the studies political arts - and indeed political scienes are under the Liberal Arts department in my school, and rightfully so they are an art.

Remarkably there are several political-scientist in the world and they do anaylitical and un-opinionated work, this is the rareity.

You can draw some conclusions from observing politics, and it has been done. Yet often bias is quiet obious.

Such is the way of this art, give it some time to refine itself.

Politics is an art, rarely a science.

Okay:

quote:

-is it governed by some natural law?

To an extent, yes I would say that it is, but largely no, it is not bound by some "untranscendable" law.

It is governed by some "natural laws" in a sense though, namely those pertaining to human nature. For instance, humans (like other advanced primates) have a strong notion of heirarchy in their social systems, and I think that most political systems represent this in some way. We feel comfortable being "led" by an individual or a small group of individuals, perhaps, because it's a natural instinct to organise ourselves this way. Similarly, the values instilled in us through our education and cultural heritage may go a long way to shaping the sorts of political systems we see today. For instance, can we explain the US's more laissez-faire, individualistic system in terms of the way the nation was founded on the sanctity of individual liberty and the rejection of what the Americans saw as "government oppression" (i.e. English rule prior to the War of Independence)? Can we explain "old-Europe's" more socialistic systems in terms of a rejection and continued rectification of the long history of gross inequality prevelant there?

So, in some sense, I think that we can identify that the laws of politics are going to be dependant on inherent human nature and the subsequent "learned" societal norms (that is, the passing on of a certain mode of thought) of the day, but that politics - as a purely theortical, synthetic a posteri creation - is bound to no laws other than those which we quite arbitrarily designate to it.

quote:

-are there right/wrong answers within?

It depends. If politics is a means to a certain end then yes, we can judge a system of politics by how well it acheives this end. For instance, if we were to suggest that politics is about sustaining a high quality of life for the citizens under the jurisdiction of a certain political system, and that political system necesitates a brutal, despotic regime that murders and maims its own people, then we can say - quite easily - that that form of politics is "unsuccesful" or "wrong". But ultimately, a political system can only be judged against a given set of objective criteria dictating what a political system should and should not involve (if such criteria exist in the first place) and that within politics there is no inherently right or wrong system. What constitutes a right or wrong political system is wholly dependant on the prevalent morality of the day.

If we judge politics not as a process to acheive a certain means, though, and instead view it as a completed "entity" - or "end" - in itself, then no, I fail to see how we can objectively assess whether it is providing the right or wrong answer. As, when we do that (view it as an end in itself), we suggest that politics exists purely for its own means, and - as such - we are impotent to morally critique it for the same reason that we are unable to, say, morally evaluate the law of gravity. For this reason, I do not believe that we should see politics as a necessary facet of human life which exists independantly of our collective wills, but rather as a series of amalgomated ideas intended to eek out a certain result at the end of the process. Thus, if our desired result is equality we turn to a socialistic system that incorporates socialistic thinking, if our desire is individualism and laissez-faire economic libertarianism then we turn to more capitalistic ideas to meet our end goal. Note that in this sense, neither capitalism nor socialism are wrong, they merely address different sets of priorities.

quote:

-has anyone stumbled upon 'correct' politics?

Many people have, I'm sure, but only in the sense that their political system matched their ideas about what results a politics should endeavour to yield. Like I said, there is no right or wrong political system unless there is agreement on what the function of the political system actually is.

Marx was right, Locke was right, Hitler was right. It's all relative.

quote:

Furthermore, why is political science taken as truth and important when social sciences are often scoffed at?

Not sure, but it reminds me of something funny I saw in a public toilet once. (Amazing how many stories can begin with that sentence. )

There was an arrow in the cubicle pointing to the roll of toilet paper, then, beside the arrow:

"Social Science degrees: please take one."

Well..... I thought it was funny.

quote:

doesnt it seem that the discussion of social interaction can be deemed more natural than the control of that interaction and other by products through a political system?

Well yes, I would argue that politics can be explained - at base and with some degree of separation - by the way a society interacts and co-exists with... er, itself. Remember politics is merely the formal extension of the hypothetical "social contract" that each citizen of a society is bound to, which is, in turn, determined by the prevalent morality and social ettiquette of the day. So yes, social sciences are more "natural" than political sciences, but then many of the laws of human interaction and behaviour in general are out of our control, so it could well be argued that the study of these laws are futile insofar as a vast knowledge of human behaviour is unlikely to give one the power to change human behaviour in any way, whereas a vast knowledge of political trends and general political theory does give one the opportunity to "change behaviour" or "improve the world" in some way. As it is human beings who define the nature of politics from the beginning (as it would be fair to assume that prior to homo sapiens there was nothing that we would naturally call "politics") it would be fair to assume that those with the greatest knowledge of politics are more likely to thus get into a position of political power and thus be more able to make a difference.

Just a theory though.

quote:

And what the hell is science exactly?

The empirical observation of laws and trends?

quote:

is it removed from religion?

As an atheist, yes. I believe it is.

quote:

has politics ever been free from religious influence?

I would say that communism was fairly free of religious influence, other than the necessary condemnation of religion in itself. Other than that, there aren't many governments around the world today that we could safely say are "free" from religious influence.....

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Thanks Renegade...


i have several comments, none of which may be in the least way coherent or relevant.

in the discussion of social sciences you discuss how the lessons learned are overall more futile than those of politics, because no change is possible. in relation to this tho, doesnt it seem one could learn more about 'ideal' politics by studying social interaction, trends et al...rather than just politics? who is to say the politics humans have already invented actually have the answers?

and in regards to atheism, and thusly the removal of science from religion- hasnt science in ways been likened to a newish religion? i dont have specific sources, but even going by my laymans knowledge on any possible relation humans have always tried to explain what exists around them, whether with myth, religion or science. i personally do feel that there exists a larger segment of *truth* in science than say myth, but even so, the human brain is only capable of comprehending so much. discoveries in science even 20 years ago have been proved ludicrous, and at the same time remarkable new ones have been purported. but these discoverys have still only been made by complex monkey brains.

i guess this long drawn out rant leads me to one overarching point, that what we have learned about ourselves this far leads us in one direction largely- a direction based on past assumptions. all politics and social contracts have had some basis on one another, but it just seems to me that treating politics like a finite study is harmful. by learning more about how we as humans interact does not assume it can be changed, but maybe that our social governing systems could be more efficient. but then again guess what type of 'scientist' i am....

-pass the toilet paper please-

but i do agree that politics tend to be personalized and minimized to a large degree- possibly preventing advancement for the total 'good'|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

Biz:

Sorry, if I'd known you were studying a Social Sciences degree I may have withheld the toilet paper joke.

As it happens, I agree with you that an understanding of culture and human nature is important to the development of a political system - my "theory" there was merely an attempt to explain why political studies may be taken more seriously than social studies.

quote:

and in regards to atheism, and thusly the removal of science from religion- hasnt science in ways been likened to a newish religion?

The end may be the same (an understanding of the world), but the means are undeniably different.

Science explains the world through observable patterns of physics, religion explains the world through unobservable systems of metaphysics. Science depends on logic and empiricism, religion depends on faith and intuition. Irrespective of whether you classify science as a "religion" or not, I would still argue to the bitter end that science represents a more "honest" approach towards explaining the world we live in, in that it begins with the questions, gathers up suitable evidence and then delivers the answer. Religion on the other hand, begins with the answers, selects its evidence to fit in with the answers and then carefully chooses its questions last - namely those that fit in comfortably with the conlcusion and the available evidence. It is impossible for religion to claim to possess unbiased solutions to the questions collectively asked by the whole of humanity.

quote:

but these discoverys have still only been made by complex monkey brains.

I agree, and that's why I question whether we have any potential of understanding the most complex question we have concerning our universe. For instance, Newton had a simple equation explaining the motion of planets and the stars, that stood the test of time. It was only after Einstein and his general theory of relativity that we recognised Newton's ideas as being slightly innaccurate. It wasn't as though Einsteins ideas were necessarily 100% accurate, but they were just that little more accurate - due to their complexity - and became the accepted theory behind the fundamental forces existent in the universe. But who's to say that someone else in the future doesn't come up with some even more complex, convoluted theory than Einstein's, that turns out to be just that little more accurate? Or that these ideas aren't superceded by something even more complex and accurate?

The point is, for all our self-imagined understanding of the world, we are still viewing the world through human eyes. We maintain that the universe is guided by strict mathematical laws (think Kant's a priori concepts of spatiality and temporality) so our theories reflect this. As we discover more and more phenomena, our theories must become correspondigly more accurate to fit in everything we see. What no-one stops to think, though, is that instead of ending up with insanely complex theories that we just add onto whenever something new turns up that appears to disagree with them, perhaps we need to rethink the fundamental way that we approach and examine the universe we find ourselves in. I wrote this in a different forum:

quote:

I've long wondered whether the patterns or "laws" we impose on the universe (particularly in theories such as that of "the general theory of relativity" which are almost exlusively conducted according to equations and precise mathematical formulae) actually correspond exactly with what we see. For instance, Newtons laws - we no realise - are incorrect, and do not actually fit in with the movements of the bodies we see in our solar system. However, by virtue of it being a simple theory, and by corresponding fairly closely with what we do know about the properties of bodies, it is used, most of the time, in preference to Einstein's General Relativity principles. Which got me thinking - by making the formulae more complex, surely you're bound to end up with a closer approximation of reality? For instance, the formulae the Einstein came up with may be as close as we get to the mathematical formula of the universe, but it doesn't mean that the universe operates by such principles. The universe certainly doesn't know that E=MC^2 within its boundries. Even if it can be shown that the universe operates by certain and definate principles, we don't know that these principles aren't infinitely large and complex (and thus presumably innaccessable to mere humans) or, indeed, that they can be described in terms of our systems of mathematics. Of course we may be getting closer and closer to coming up with a system that corresponds with what we see in nature, but we have no of knowing if we are accurately depicting the principles that actually govern the universe. Does the fact that the principles correspond with what we find mean that they must necessarily be the cause of what we find? Surely assuming that our formulae are responsible for the movement of the planets, or any other physical action, represents a position of false causality. The principles that we find in nature may correspond with nature, but it doesn't mean that these principles exist or that nature is guided by them. Perhaps that is why we must take scientism with a grain of salt.

quote:

by learning more about how we as humans interact does not assume it can be changed, but maybe that our social governing systems could be more efficient. but then again guess what type of 'scientist' i am....

I agree entirely. As usual, I think we need to take a bottom-up approach to the world - that is, examine the smaller things in isolation and build up general principles from there - rather than the top-down approach which necessitates the creation of general principles first and then trying to get the specifics to fit in later on.

So, with regards to this topic then, the bottom-up approach would involve isolating the specifics of human behaviour and culture and then creating general political principles to fit in with them. The top-down approach - which seems to be how too many political systems are created - would involve the creation of a general theory of politics (say capitalism, socialism, democracy, imperialism etc.) and then attempting to squeeze in or modify the specifics of culture later on. To use an example - and to drag yet another topic onto the Iraq debate - the US go to Iraq with the grandiose dreams of implementing laissez-faire capitalism and democracy, yet the clear assumption here is that they are taking these political systems, a priori, to be "right" for the Iraqi people, without going into any great examination about whether these systems are likely to be compatible with the more particular, smaller facets of Iraqi society. The obvious implication, of course, is that if any facets of the Iraqi life are incompatible with these systems then it will be these facets, rather than the political systems, that will be forced to adapt.

So that's called a "top-down" approach to politics (it can be applied to many other things though, including morality and so on) and I'm not sure I can agree with it. So in short, yes, I do agree that political systems would be more likely to be effective where an in depth understanding of human nature and culture exists, and where the political system reflects these things. Perhaps Social Science degrees are worth more than bog-roll after all.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Politics does not = science. There's a science to politics and that science or ART is rhetoric

Good posts Renegade... if only you could talk so well about international law

As for regarding the Science and God.. I wrote just a few sentance that describe how I, and I believe many others feel about it in one of my essays of which the exert I will display here;

"Locke’s origin of equality is from the Divine. He uses scripture to derive political equality. But in our world today we no longer see scripture, the Bible as absolute truth. In our world to gain insight onto Divine notions, to unfold our absolute truth, we draw upon science. Science, many believe is our real Bible, it is the truth God has set out for us and by understanding and uncovering laws in science we uncover God’s intentions. "