Talk:Political science: Difference between revisions
imported>Jesse R. Wilson (correction: changed status from "stub" to "3" ... number was supposed to have been used instead) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Catalog: new section) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
== Putting "Science?" here for now == | |||
<blockquote> | |||
Although political scientists are prone to debate and disagreement, the majority view the discipline as a genuine science. As a result, political scientists generally strive to emulate the objectivity as well as the conceptual and methodological rigor typically associated with the so-called "hard" sciences (e.g., [[biology]], [[chemistry]], and [[physics]]). Thus, in contrast to scholars in such fields as literature, art history or classics, political scientists avoid the use of impressionistic or metaphorical language, or language which appeals primarily to our senses, emotions, or moral beliefs. Political theory is an important exception to this empirical approach.<ref name="UNC Writing in Political Science">[http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/polisci.html Writing In Political Science] University of North Carolina</ref> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
Until there's some context for it in the article, I don't think it makes sense to have this paragraph there. In fact, it might be better off as just part of a larger section on the various controversies about what political science is and isn't/should and shouldn't be. [[User:Shamira Gelbman|Shamira Gelbman]] 19:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| | |||
== Catalog == | |||
A first attempt. If someone has an academic background in law or journalism, and not formal poli sci, I exclude them. So far, I've excluded formal historians. | |||
What about international relations people? Political philosophers, especially before formal political scientists? Do Hegel and Marx qualify? | |||
[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 11:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:46, 4 August 2009
Putting "Science?" here for now
Although political scientists are prone to debate and disagreement, the majority view the discipline as a genuine science. As a result, political scientists generally strive to emulate the objectivity as well as the conceptual and methodological rigor typically associated with the so-called "hard" sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics). Thus, in contrast to scholars in such fields as literature, art history or classics, political scientists avoid the use of impressionistic or metaphorical language, or language which appeals primarily to our senses, emotions, or moral beliefs. Political theory is an important exception to this empirical approach.[1]
Until there's some context for it in the article, I don't think it makes sense to have this paragraph there. In fact, it might be better off as just part of a larger section on the various controversies about what political science is and isn't/should and shouldn't be. Shamira Gelbman 19:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Catalog
A first attempt. If someone has an academic background in law or journalism, and not formal poli sci, I exclude them. So far, I've excluded formal historians.
What about international relations people? Political philosophers, especially before formal political scientists? Do Hegel and Marx qualify?
Howard C. Berkowitz 11:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- ↑ Writing In Political Science University of North Carolina