aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/rich
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorHolden Rohrer <hr@hrhr.dev>2020-08-21 17:31:51 -0400
committerHolden Rohrer <hr@hrhr.dev>2020-08-21 17:31:51 -0400
commit5b594852070434278c5778abcef4409d3690a55b (patch)
treea16d29b19e57b773fcac9268d850394a4b2347b2 /rich
parent338491f89d6a3c01adc4251fa45597dbad32e44b (diff)
more lectures
Diffstat (limited to 'rich')
-rw-r--r--rich/03_science27
1 files changed, 27 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/rich/03_science b/rich/03_science
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0ad2b20
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rich/03_science
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+Is Poli. Sci. a science?
+- John Lewis Gaddis:
+ - Imagined prediction vs. replicating/reproducing results is
+ intuitive difference
+ - Five standards:
+ - Parsimony: smallest laws that predict human behavior
+ - Poli. Sci. has some laws, but thety aren't strictj
+ - Variables
+ - Nominal: positive or negative (did or didn't happen)
+ - Ordinal, ordered preferences
+ - Nonlinear, subjective
+ - Continuous (very wide variation, more scientific)
+ - political science has fewer, making it less replicate.
+ - Accounting for change
+ - Cold War wasn't accurately predicted
+ - Predictions by poli. sci. are typically bad
+ - Commensurability
+ - Common results and definitions
+ - Political Science doesn't have singular, consistent
+ definitions (see: democracy, war)
+ - Objectivtiy
+ - Poli. Sci. is often subjective and requires bias for
+ proper analysis
+ - But so are hard sciences like medicine.
+ - Concludes that poli. sci is a science because it
+ - tries to obtain these goals (it is very young so less adv)
+ - predicts or prepares