Question for Political Science Majors..

[Ceos]

I remember talking to my father back when I was taking Physics in HS. He told me about how his Physics teacher always brought everything they did in class back to F=ma .

I was wondering if in political science they do the same thing, as in bring everything back to the basic principles. If its not traced back, then whats the backing?

[Conza88]

I don't do Political Science... not that it really matters.

Basic principles are as follows:
S=G
USA=Demo
Ty>Fr

S = State
G = Great
USA = United States of America
Demo = Democracy
Ty = Tyranny
Fr = Freedom

[New York For Paul]

I remember talking to my father back when I was taking Physics in HS. He told me about how his Physics teacher always brought everything they did in class back to F=ma .

I was wondering if in political science they do the same thing, as in bring everything back to the basic principles. If its not traced back, then whats the backing?

As a graduate with a political science degree, I would say they are still trying to figure it out.

Here is one of their upcoming conferences. They can be way to theoretical and have not been in the real world. Many are blinded by their liberal ideology.

Many of their scientific articles could be pulled apart and criticized.

http://www.apsanet.org/

There are a few smart political scientists, but they are few and far between.

You can learn just as much if not more by being involved in politics and participating with candidates, consultants, interest groups and being an activist.

[Ceos]

Thanks for the feedback.

I was expecting to hear fundamental doctrines like Habeas Corpus.

So what exactly do political scientists use as a base for arguement? I find it difficult to argue effectively when you don't have fundamentals.

I was curious on this subject because I see Ron Paul goes back to the Constitution for his views. I wanted to know what other people in our government used to justify their views.

[10thAmendment]

I remember talking to my father back when I was taking Physics in HS. He told me about how his Physics teacher always brought everything they did in class back to F=ma .

I was wondering if in political science they do the same thing, as in bring everything back to the basic principles. If its not traced back, then whats the backing?

I'm not a political science major but...

The problem is that, as a consequence of most people not knowing the Constitution and its history anymore, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution prevail. In analogy, F=ma except on Tuesdays, for example.

[Truth Warrior]

Political Science is an oxymoron.<IMHO>

[Mini-Me]

I'm not a political science major but...

The problem is that, as a consequence of most people not knowing the Constitution and its history anymore, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution prevail. In analogy, F=ma except on Tuesdays, for example.

Technically, F might not = ma on Tuesdays, if you're driving to work at relativistic speeds that day.

Thanks for the feedback.

I was expecting to hear fundamental doctrines like Habeas Corpus.

So what exactly do political scientists use as a base for arguement? I find it difficult to argue effectively when you don't have fundamentals.

I was curious on this subject because I see Ron Paul goes back to the Constitution for his views. I wanted to know what other people in our government used to justify their views.

Quite frankly, I don't think many of our Congresspeople or Senators have even thought any of their positions through to their logical conclusions. I don't really think any of them (even consistent ones like Kucinich) except for Paul rigorously justify their positions based solely on fundamental principles...especially not fundamental principles centered on inalienable individual rights. Rather, I think most of them have an "anything goes" mentality about government where it's the government's right and responsibility to do whatever it deems necessary for some kind of greater good. Because of this fuzzy and permissive mentality towards government's boundaries and limitations, it opens up a whole subjective can of worms about just "how much" the state should meddle in the market, and just "how much" domestic spying should be done. Representatives always seem like they're trying to strike this supposedly perfect "balance" and "moderation." Every law seems to have a whole bunch of very specific and arbitrary details and exceptions, which just highlight the arbitrary decision-making process they go through. If any of them based their legislation off of truly consistent principles, the way to vote would always be obvious, and all laws would be based on obvious fundamental and general principles. I think each representative has a few weak, fuzzy guidelines that they like to stick by which often center around the party platform, and when it comes to wedge issues, they base their opinions on emotion. When they discuss legislation, their practical analysis of each bill's consequences is shallow, and because so few have unwavering principles, discussion based on solid principles rarely occurs. This contributes greatly to the inconsistent voting pattern most show, and it also contributes to the gradual expansion of government: When they meddle and things seem to go well, more meddling must work better. When they meddle and bad things happen, they clearly just didn't do "enough." Plus, I think that Congresspeople and Senators believe that because it's their full-time job, they just must spend it doing something...so they just continue to make more and more laws to "fix" real and perceived problems.

[Truth Warrior]

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx

[mtmedlin]

I am a Poli Sci major but you must remember that within any science there are many disciplines. There is campaign management, polling, general poli sci.....etc. I did a little of all three and I go back to the constitution, English common Law, some napoleonic Code and maybe a dash of Islamic code (yes, it did influence the constitution).
I also reference certain major documents. My favorite is the federalist Papers.


Is that what you were looking for?

[mtmedlin]

Political Science is an oxymoron.<IMHO>

Ya, try doing polling or data analysis. Without a background in advanced math the average man would fail Empirical Political Analysys, which is a basic Poli sci class. It is within the arts and sciences department of most universities but many schools are starting to focus harder within the math area and moving it to a BS instead of a BA.