From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:31:35 -0700
No, Alan, this is not true, I would not include all other sciences in
the same category as "political science".

Statistics makes the difference. Study of the stable societies show some
patterns.Economics even boasts by some (though trivial) laws.

Can you formulate any such a law in "political science"?

Ari Belenkiy


On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:48 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Allan Scherlen <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0400
>
> Then by extrapolation Ari must be dismissive of all the social
> "sciences" beyond political "science" for similar reasons whether
> those sciences measures voting patterns by race or gender,
> sociological phenomena, crime statistics, and human behavior in
> general.
>
> Allan Scherlen
>
> On 3/27/2013 9:54 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> > 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
>