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