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
|
