Where are all the political scientists in this?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2012, 09:04 PM
Where are all the political scientists in this?
When we have questions about biology, we turn to our biologists for answers. When we we're not sure about something in the nature of the stars, we turn to our astrophysicists. And yet, when we have questions and concerns in politics, we turn to... major network news anchors and relatives? I know Political Science is a field, because my brother majored in it. So where are all the political scientists in the field of politics?

I'm stuck in the south right now, watching uninformed people shout un-researched opinions at the television. So I'm wondering, why are there no "trusted experts" to turn to like every other field? I realize that politics is more subjective and open to bias than actual science, but these people spend years examining past regimes and discussing why they failed or where they succeeded. If anything, they know more about the source of the problems than anyone else. Instead, I have to listen to bipartisan parrots squawking keywords at each other with no idea what the cause is. "Economy! Unemployment rate!" Well what would you have done to improve the economy that Obama didn't? "...Squawk! Economy!"

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2012, 11:37 PM
RE: Where are all the political scientists in this?
I think you'd have to be one dumb-arse scientist to get involved in politics! Fuck that.

Polly's deal in lies, unlike any decent scientist.

Humankind Dodgy (a total misnomer)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2012, 01:33 AM
RE: Where are all the political scientists in this?
They are the ones who's being covered by the major networks.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2012, 02:29 AM
RE: Where are all the political scientists in this?
They've all moved to Al Jazeera

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
12-10-2012, 03:35 AM
RE: Where are all the political scientists in this?
It's not that they're not out there, it's just that some fruit basket yelling uneducated opinions at a camera sells.

With science stuff scientists are called in because it's new and exciting and people are fascinated by what they have to say. aka, scientists talking about science sells.
But also science stuff like biology or whatever a lot of people just arnt interested in so those that look up that sort of stuff are interested and want those educated opinions.
Politics is unique in the sense that almost everyone is interested in it. Even people who don't like politics (more or less majority of people) will watch a political thing on TV. Why? Because it effects them directly so they take an interest.

And so because you are talking to the masses and you are competing more for audience then you have to have shitty people like Cunt O'Cuntly giving their biased shitty opinion. Basically, you need to dumb it down. Where as science it's a more educated specific audience and so you need to cater to that.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2012, 03:57 AM
RE: Where are all the political scientists in this?
Probably because people think that politics and things like that are easy enough for anyone to understand it without any work, so anyone who can put more than two words together and make sense it's good enough to talk in the news about politics...

I'd dare to say it's pretty much like when physics and other sciences where starting, anyone was philosopher and was capable enough to talk about "science" now that things have come more complicated we can't trust anyone on that, politics, law, economics, sociology and all those sciences are just beginning so anyone dares to talk about it without much understanding of what they're saying.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2012, 08:15 AM
RE: Where are all the political scientists in this?
(11-10-2012 09:04 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  When we have questions about biology, we turn to our biologists for answers. When we we're not sure about something in the nature of the stars, we turn to our astrophysicists. And yet, when we have questions and concerns in politics, we turn to... major network news anchors and relatives? I know Political Science is a field, because my brother majored in it. So where are all the political scientists in the field of politics?

I'm stuck in the south right now, watching uninformed people shout un-researched opinions at the television. So I'm wondering, why are there no "trusted experts" to turn to like every other field? I realize that politics is more subjective and open to bias than actual science, but these people spend years examining past regimes and discussing why they failed or where they succeeded. If anything, they know more about the source of the problems than anyone else. Instead, I have to listen to bipartisan parrots squawking keywords at each other with no idea what the cause is. "Economy! Unemployment rate!" Well what would you have done to improve the economy that Obama didn't? "...Squawk! Economy!"
I've been wondering about that too and many of my posts reflect the situation. Only my new university studies shed some light on this.
Apparently, America is a unique global superpower political sciences - it is de facto one of national industries. There are tens of thousands people working for think tanks. A think tank is a university without students, doing all but teaching. Every time a president changes, all his administration of officers is recruited from Democrat or Republican think tanks while the former officers go back to their own think tanks.

However, this is all rather useless, as long as the U.S. banking system is private and Goldman Sachs or Wall Street bankers dictate the policy. They needed to bail out the banks, so Obama bailed out the banks. I believe Obama is a good, sane man, who probably would not commit a Bushian error and invade another country, but other than that he still has to obey the financial forces. No American administration is free to call things their real names, identify the real liabilities and organize the country in a meaningful way. During 20th century people believed blindly in crazy ideologies in economy, so it wasn't that apparent. But today they're coming out of this dream, perhaps realizing that the other guy over the hill probably isn't the cause.

And yes, American politics is unique in how almost all people are interested in it, even if they don't know shit about the political science, they just want to see it anointed and blessed by their particular religion. It's quite impressive, really. America was founded for a purpose and it has a mission in the world. It's not like these old world countries that just sort of always were there, just places with names that need to be defended, people there need to be fed and that's all there is to a country.

So I try to avoid the politics too and focus on real technical solutions. For example, people want to increase minimal salaries as a thing of social justice, not realizing that it would make the employers just employ less people and specially not young and old ones, who need the money the most. Another example, the constitutional circuit of power checks and balances is a nice thing, but it's completely shorted by a graphite bomb called dollar. As long as government officials have financial privacy and no top limit on their property, we'll have the best laws that money can buy.

In my country both people and academics consider politics a dirty, dirty thing. This is true, but unfortunately it allows the politics to get even dirtier, so much that this year my (prime) ministers and deputies are getting prosecuted and/or arrested almost every week. Our voting and political party participation is extremely low. So that's another way to fuck up a country.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2012, 08:34 AM
RE: Where are all the political scientists in this?
For what it's worth, I majored in history with a PolySci minor...

My take on the current political trajectory...

http://seanasbury.wordpress.com/2012/10/...mocracy-2/

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2012, 09:14 AM
RE: Where are all the political scientists in this?
Assuming that you are talking about the "pundits" and the occasional "political analyst", that's actually what you are getting. A lot of these people majored in either politics, history or journalism, and a lot of these people, specifically the "journalists", have covered politics and know history more than enough to make, at least, a decent judgement about what they are talking about.

The problem is with the fields. This "social science" stuff, just isn't science. Economics, political science, psychology, sociology, etc, are all mostly junk. These are things that can be studied, especially looking at history, people can make an analysis, they can even use something similar to the scientific method and in some cases apply mathematics, but the predictions being made, at least for the most part, are not at all allowed to be properly scrutinized, don't properly allow for falsification, and they are not, again for the most part, looking at things that are, even assumed, fixed.

With natural science, even almost without assuming things are fixed, if someone disagrees with your opinion, to even be considered credible, you have to lay out a solution that is falsifiable, and then all the person that disagrees has to do is show your claim false. If someone denies that evolution is true, for example, they can spend their entire life, if that's what they want to do, attempting to prove it incorrect, and they will either succeed, or continually show the strength of the theory.

With social sciences, you just can't do that in the same way. What you can do though, is apply an understanding of history, philosophy, and in some cases natural sciences, to the fields to make your views more credible, fundamental and based on logic and reason. If you ask the problem with that, it's that people don't have an understanding of philosophy and sometimes don't know their history well enough, they just major in political science or journalism. It's that you can teach someone what all the mathematical symbols represent, but if you don't teach them mathematical logic, they are going to screw up and give answers that are rooted in nonsense, and even if you do teach them the logic, it doesn't mean they will have the intellectual capacity to easily comprehend.

The further problem is that even if you get a Karl Marx, it's not like you can convince anyone and everyone that what he said holds any weight. People will go on believing what they want to believe regardless of the truth. Even when you can show people hard evidence of what actually does happen, they will go against it, like the vast majority of Americans that polls show do not believe in natural evolution without the assistance of a god. So, would you expect any different when all you can provide is reason, logic, a little bit of history and a strong opinion? Or would you expect people just to double down on their own views?

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: