Libresco: Thinking scientifically to think clearly
It’s been a bad week for science. Senator Tom Coburn’s introduction of an amendment to prohibit the National Science Foundation from giving any grants to political scientists came hot on the heels of a front page example of scientific illiteracy.
In a New York Times article, “Swine Flu Shots Revive a Debate About Vaccines,” (Oct. 15), Leslie Arndt, an ordinary citizen without any higher training in the sciences, explained why she did not plan on being vaccinated. Arndt — who says she has read the positions on both sides — was unable to come to a firm conclusion on the effectiveness...
Political scientists are not always politicians.
I would add that PoliSci *can* teach critical thinking -- if combined with, say, mathematics ;-) -- but like prisoners that use their time to study law, it can also lead to a mishmash of half-understood, half-baked ideas, or simply used to distort.
That said, PoliSci is perhaps among the least offensive of the soft sciences.
Political Science is NOT Science.
The difference between Social Science and Science is the difference between phronesis and episteme.
Any subject can be studied analytically. Any corpus -- literary, quantitative, or schematic -- contains hypotheses that might be disprovable. Science is different because it uses empirical tools to push the boundaries of humanity's understanding. Senator Coburn is right to observe that the Political Science departments of the last few decades haven't done much for humanity's understanding.
For those who want an education in clear thinking, Yale offers it. But so many of us satisfy our distributional requirements with an easy credit instead of a serious introduction. I have to wonder why they even offer courses like that.
What's next, is the National Science Foundation going to subsidize Sociology or American Studies?
The phrase "data-based decision making" makes me shudder. Politics is not a science. Coburn for President.