Can Politics Be Regarded as a Science Essay

The debate as whether governing drive out be regarded as a intuition is complex, voluminous and multi-faceted one . The origins of semi governmental analysis lie in the philosophical tradition of Plato and Aristotle whose work was fundamentally rooted in the normative. At the in truth early stages of regime as an academic discipline, the great thinkers of the while were non concerned with a posteriori evidence instead basing their ideas on literary analysis. The emphasis on the normative that comes with the traditional strike of semi policy-making lore suggests that politics is not a intelligence as it cannot be objective.This was followed by the branch of the normative model of semi policy-making analysis and what Peter Lasslett called the the death of political philosophy. This movement was spearheaded by Machiavelli who was known as the father of the politics model of political science. For example, he changes the value-laden question (what is better? ) into a scien tific one what is safer? The shift from the prescriptive to the descriptive and impartial suggests that political pattern has shifted a demeanor from the traditional philosophical to the scientific model.The empirical model of political thought emphasised the importance of experience as the stern for fellowship and this later developed into positivism which dictates that the social sciences should adhere to the modes of the natural sciences . An native version of this was also sto aged(prenominal) called logical positivism which stated that only statements which were empirically verifiable and aimed to say something about the meaning of political concepts are legalize . In accompaniment the empirical model is seen as the foundation of relative politics that is now the standard melodic line of analysis in the UK and the US.This method seeks to develop generalizations by comparing different states or political systems. This produces meagrely more informative results as on e is more likely to be able to produce an ideal political situation through similarity rather than just using empirical evidence alone. However, there keep up been criticisms of the sensibleity of comparative politics most notably from Alasdair MacIntyre. He states that creating law-like despoil cultural generalizations between countries with radically different cultures is not as valid as proponents of comparative politics make it out to be .He uses the example of a study by Almond and Verba that states that Italians identify little with the actions of their government than the English or Germans because they of a survey asking what they took self-exaltation in . The point that McIntyre then goes on to make is that the notions of pride in Italy and England are vastly different and thus any comparison would receive to start by identifying the virtues that are embedded within the institutions. However, he goes on to add that this shortcoming doesnt entirely devalue the work o f comparative politics.Karl Marx was the root to describe politics in terms of science and, on with Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, was described one of the main architects of political science . He believed that he could methodically determine trends in history and from these deduct the in store(predicate) outcomes of social conflicts. However, whilst this approach whitethorn seem to be simply empirical in its approach to political analysis it has been confirmed that his theories yield testable propositions that reserve rigorous evaluation and even falsification .His role represents a outstanding shift from the political philosophers of the traditional Greek model as he famously said in his Theses of Feuerbach that philosophers shake up only interpreted the valet de chambre the point is to change it . However, whilst Marx may mother been the first person to rightfully combine scientific methodology with political thought, questions can still be raised over its stiffness. Fo r example, the fact that Marx predicted the fall of capitalism whilst in fact state socialism has been on the retreat.There has also been criticism of Marxs methods. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper criticised scientific socialism as a pseudoscience due to Marxs methods of looking at historical trends and using them to create universal laws which couldnt be tested of disprove. This may suggest that the bolshie model of political analysis as a science is not correct. Despite this it is important to note how, whilst Marxs predictions may not get hold of proved correct, his methods and the concept of politics as a science is unquestionable. ecstasy for the idea of political science grew in the 20th century with the groundwork of the American Political Science Review in 1906 and also the yield of the behavioralism movement in the 1950s and 1960s. This was the period coined as the behavioural whirling by Robert Garner who cryed that number crunchingin relation to el ectoral behaviour was the gold standard whilst normative analysis was rendered at best, unnecessary and at worst, meaningless .This can be viewed as the most compelling moorage for politics beingness regarded as a science as it is the first time that objective and quantifiable data could be tested against hypotheses. The form of political analysis that was emerging in this period was heavily ground on behaviouralism which worked on the principle that social theories should be constructed on the root of observable behaviour which provides quantifiable evidence for research. This lead to increased refer and activity in the field of quantitative research methods such as voting behaviour, the records of legislators and the behaviour of lobbyists.It was also at this time that David Easton claimed that politics could ask the methodology of the natural sciences . Here we can see how the initial relate that Marx drew between politics and scientific research methods have been sensiti ve with the use of quantifiable rather than just empirical evidence. There have been objections to the usefulness of behaviouralism in the study of politics though. One argument has been that it has significantly limited the scope of analysis by preventing it from going beyond what is flat quantifiable or observable.The idea behindhand this is that whilst the methodical basis behind behaviouralism may be scientifically sound that doesnt mean that it is the way to analyse politics. This raises the question as to whether politics should be regarded as a science rather than could it. The very spirit of politics is that it is inherently forgiving and to discard all that is not empirically verifiable in its study is to neglect the very essence of politics. This argument could be viewed as inappropriate to the question however because it really looking at whether politics should be regarded as a science and not if it could.This being said Andrew Heywood presents a valid criticism o f the methodology of behaviouralism and the use of quantifiable data. The scientific basis of behaviouralism is that it is objective but in order for this to be so it has to be value-free. He claims that facts and values are so closely intertwined that it is often undoable to prise them apart and that theories are always based on assumptions clement nature . This argument presents a major threat to the legitimacy of behaviouralism and suggests that the methodological basis behind it is not sound enough to equate to the death of politics as a science.Whilst the methodology of political science may be all well and good, this doesnt necessarily lead us to the conclusion that politics should be regarded as a science. There have been numerous arguments to suggest that despite the existence of quantifiable and empirical evidence, it is actually damaging to study politics in a scientific manner. For one, the very nature of political science is that it is descriptive rather prescriptive . This idea seems to be counter intuitive to the very study of politics as a discipline.Whilst, the added scientific element to political analysis gives us the added advantage of exam and academic rigour it will never produce any political ideas without the normative aspect of political philosophy. This presents to us how damaging political science can be if studied in isolation since the very nature of the political analysis is one that should be aimed at progression, change and ascertain how to achieve our political ideals. In fact in recent years, the validity of political science has started to be questioned by political scientists themselves.As an undergrad Charles Lindblom apparently fled the mushiness of political science to pursue a calibrate study of economics and David Easton proclaimed that he had political science as a limpid body of knowledge had no basis . This suggests that whilst political science doesnt translate as smoothly in practice. The Perestroika Movemen t began in October 2000 with an unidentified email to the American Political Science Review calling for a dismantling of the Orwellian system that we have in the APSA.The movement was for the most part a reaction to the so called mathematicization of political science and a disposition to achieve methodological pluralism. Specifically, it aimed at challenging the dominance of positivist research, curiously research that assumes that political behaviour can be predicted according to theories of grounds . Whilst this movement could be seen as a criticism of political science it could just as easily be seen as highly constructive.It recognises the merits of politics being studied as a science yet wants it to e more inclusive and less restricted in terms of methodology. However, this presents a problem for the positivist wing of political scientists that stick to the assertion that political science should obey the methods of the natural sciences. From this we can come to the concl usion that criticisms of political science is not proof of how politics shouldnt be regarded as a science but is instead just an example of twain methodological factions within the discipline.We can see how the historical development of political science presents a good case for the idea that politics can be regarded as a science. Some claim that politics is a science because it offers knowledge based on systematic enquiry . However, this claim bases itself on a loose definition of science and one that many political analysts wouldnt be completely satisfied with. The arguments for politics being regarded as a science lie more in the pissed scientific methodology that can seemingly be applied to political analysis.Whilst there have been many criticisms of methodology of political science I think that the major qualms that academics have is with the danger of studying political science in isolation. The obsession with empirical data that developed during the behavioural variety cou ld easily be labelled as counter-intuitive seeing as it completely disregards the normative. Despite this I think that politics can still be regarded as a science, yet it is just important that this is combined with elements of the old philosophical tradition.