From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:29:24 -0700

Science - by definition - is the field, which allows for replicating
experiments. You can demonstrate you statement again and again.

Politics denies even a possibility of replication of any experiment.
For example, there is nothing in politics which is considered
disproved.

Therefore attaching to it the word "science" is an oxymoron.
"Political science" is simply a venue to produce political coterie.
Cum grano salis, I would compare it with Hollywood.

True, NSF may sponsor science fiction movies. It also may sponsor
political science "research" and thus the future politicians who argue
for increase of funding of ... NSF. A vicious circle?

Ari Belenkiy



On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:19 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Ivie, Thomas" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:29:58 -0700
>
> Isn't the study of a subject, like politics, a science? The study of
> politics employs a variety of methodologies that lead to quantitative
> analyses. To me, this infers that the science would be in the
> methodologies used and the discovery of outcomes. Sure, there is plenty
> of subjectivity in the social sciences, but there is a great deal of
> objectivity that is backed by quantitative methods. I think it could be
> argued that even though a subject isn't studied at the cellular,
> molecular, compound level, etc., it can still be studied scientifically.
> Science really is the effort to understand, or at least try to
> understand, by using observable evidence. Some would argue that it is
> understood through the observation of "natural" evidence. What is
> natural?  Can politics be studied by the observation of natural
> evidence? Are behaviors part of nature? I know this discussion is a bit
> off the LibLicense topic, but it did make me think about what a science
> is and left me with a few questions as well.
>
> Thomas Ivie, M.P.A., M.S.L.S.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 4:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Sequestration / austerity and publisher profits
>
> From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:19:19 -0700
>
> "Political science" is not a science but politics. Perhaps good that it
> is not to be funded anymore by NSF.
>
> Ari Belenkiy
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:50 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:17:33 -0500
> >
> > You may have heard that the Senate has just passed legislation, likely
>
> > to be passed by the House also, that removes most funding of political
>
> > science research by the NSF.  In this case, austerity was used as an
> > excuse to do something that Republicans have long wanted to do for
> > political reasons anyway.
> >
> > Sandy Thatcher