Who Knew?

If you replaced "political scientists" with "climate scientists" throughout the entire article it would read just as well either way.

I couldn't help but admire the awesome act of cognitive dissonance that Professor Stevens executed in this op-ed: On the one hand, she denigrates the House Republicans as anti-intellectuals, yet on the other she concedes there's no there there, as far as the _science_ part of her discipline is concerned. She might not have picked up on the subtle cue that the National Science Foundation is supposed to fund science, not exercises in philosophical speculation. The House Repubs are showing commendable as to what is and is not science, in denying funding to this crew.

The fact that political scientists, sociologists, and other academic parasites have been sucking on the government teat for some time now has been an intellectual travesty at the taxpayer's expense. I rejoice to see that, not only can the House Repubs discern the difference between science and speculative philosophy, they are actually husbanding the long-suffering taxpayers' dollars.

Pay for your own damn political philosophizing!

Well for starters it's not 'science'. Not by any definition. 'Forecasting' would be a stretch.
Calling it a science is preposterous.

Tired of being ridiculed, the PTB are moving away from the "political science" phrase to "political studies".

The forecaster at Zero Hedge!

"...just this once I’m sympathetic with the anti-intellectual Republicans..."

I'll miss the NYT so.

Black Mamba, you have eyes like a laser. Way to cut to the chase.

In my not-so-humble opinion, science generally and the "social sciences" in particular would benefit enormously from a sever and lengthy money drought. There is such a thing as over-watering, and if there was ever an example then our university Social Science programs are it.

My original major was Anthropology. Since the 1960's the very idea of reproducible measurement has been actively mocked and derided in that discipline. It -is- perfectly possible to design observational studies that measure things like energy use or dietary completeness in primitive societies, its just that nobody is willing to do that because they are all Post Modern Theorists intent on disappearing up their own backsides.

Case in point from the article: "My colleagues now point to research by the political scientists and N.S.F. grant recipients James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin that claims that civil wars result from weak states, and are not caused by ethnic grievances." Which conclusion was reached because it was "too hard" to measure grievances. Which is utterly typical.

Truth is I can come up with two or three ways to do that off the top of my head, which means other people can definitely do better. And they aren't. Which means there's money in -not- doing it.

Here endeth the rant.

"Black Mamba, you have eyes like a laser."

My awesome mutant lasereyes zoomed all the way in to Carlos Perera's comment @3:12. I like to think I would have spotted the thing on my own when I got round to reading the article, though.

"My original major was Anthropology." - oh, I feel your pain. I was once subjected to the theory that the walls of Jericho (the real, observable walls at Jericho, no need to drag the bible into this) were actually flood barriers. Because people were nice and peaceful back then. And because life-threatening floods were a major concern in ancient Mesopotamia.

And then there are the lies about cannibalism. Don't get me started...

Okay, fine, not Mesopotamia. The West Bank. It's all very hot over there. Point remains.

Mesopotamia, West bank, close enough. What's a few hundred miles of empty @ss desert?

Interestingly, Google can't (won't?) calculate directions between anyplace in Israel/Jordan/wherever and Iraq. It can calculate within Israel.

"Mesopotamia, West bank, close enough."

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.