# Why fight it? Because it is important.



## a_majoor (9 Feb 2005)

I found this piece rather disturbing for the following reasons:

1. If it represents an accurate description of academia today, then it follows these and similar ideas are influencing public discussion, which in turns influences policy decision, which ultimatly rebound on us, the ultimate "enforces" of government policy.

2. Since we insist that all officers are University educated, many will be exposed to these ideas, and a certain percentage will find them attractive. Leaders should be trained in critical thinking in order to plan and control actions. If they think like physical scientists, then all well and good, these people clearly see cause and effect relationships. Otherwise....

This explains why I will spend precious time to argue against many of the positions espoused on this board. Critical thought will expose the holes in arguements like this, and we need to hold these things up to the light where they will shrivel and die.



> *W. Churchill
> A sad look at a sick academic bubble.*
> 
> By Mark Goldblatt
> ...


----------



## pbi (10 Feb 2005)

So...are we saying that in the social sciences there is a "correct" viewpoint or interpretation that is to be used as the benchmark for measuring people's beliefs and theories?

Well, let's look at some of the things that have been considered to be socially, culturally or politically "correct" in Canada over the years:

-Catholics should not hold office or be allowed to vote;

-women should not be allowed to vote or serve in the military;

-14 year old boys should be hung for stealing watches;

-Only white, European males should be permitted to join the military, police or fire services;

-we should lock up the Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Nisei and Doukhobors without due process;

-men should be able to beat their wives without the interference of police or society;

-Roman Catholic Church clergy should be above criminal investigation for sexual abuse of youngsters;

-Jews are not welcome in private clubs;

-we should not drink alcohol on Sundays;  etc.

All of these were, at one time, accepted practice if not mandated by law at some time/some place in this country. What changed these things were people who challenged the social and political status quo. 

Now, Ward Churchill may be a twit-in fact it sounds like he is-but he has a right to express his opinion as offensive as it may be, as long as he qualifies it as his opinion and does not force it on others. The day that we decide in our universities that there is a "right" view on social sciences is the day that either the Left or the Right will hold sway over people's minds.  The purpose of higher education is not to swallow somebody's idea of "The Truth" (Left or Right) but IMHO to develop critical faculties of reasoning, research, logic, debate and questioning.

As for officers' minds being polluted by hearing this sort of thing: well, perhaps they better not watch TV or see a movie or read a magazine or a book either. It is up to all of us to examine ideas presented in the academic environment, assess them, and then accept or discard as we see fit. I suggest that if an officer cannot develop that faculty then he has not much potential as an officer anyway.

I do not like the raving ideologues of the Left, but I have no time for the Fox/Rush Limbaugh/Pat Robertson freaks either.

Cheers


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Feb 2005)

If Ward Churchill loses his pulpit, it should just be for plain old tawdry fraud, not for expressing an opinion.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2005)

> Now, Ward Churchill may be a twit-in fact it sounds like he is-but he has a right to express his opinion as offensive as it may be, as long as he qualifies it as his opinion and does not force it on others. The day that we decide in our universities that there is a "right" view on social sciences is the day that either the Left or the Right will hold sway over people's minds.  The purpose of higher education is not to swallow somebody's idea of "The Truth" (Left or Right) but IMHO to develop critical faculties of reasoning, research, logic, debate and questioning.
> 
> As for officers' minds being polluted by hearing this sort of thing: well, perhaps they better not watch TV or see a movie or read a magazine or a book either. It is up to all of us to examine ideas presented in the academic environment, assess them, and then accept or discard as we see fit. I suggest that if an officer cannot develop that faculty then he has not much potential as an officer anyway.



This is one of the few times I disagree with you, PBI, but not for your opinion, which is correct, but the underlying assumption that the current academic environment will support or allow the mental development that lets people assess ideas, then accept or discard them. The posts by a lot of people on the political board demonstrate a disturbing tendency to parrot popular "memes", without any evidence of serious examination of their meaning, content or possible consequences. Broadsides which deconstruct these memes with facts, historical analogy or anything else seem to have little effect. In effect, the social sciences already indoctrinate students with somebodys idea of "The Truth", wheras hard sciences deduce "The Truth" from observation and experiment.

The fact these ideas are not challenged and become entranched has a negative feedback loop on us, Ideas about "soft power" and "peacekeeping" and "root causes" effectively discount the need for an effective and prepared military force to maintain soverenty over Canada or support Canadian interests abroad. This is reflected in practical matters like manning ceilings, equipment selection and purchases;  mission objectives and ROEs. 

The practical effect on our force if a large percentage of officers think this way is less clear, but the idea that they don't or won't examine or change their views even in the face of contrary evidence does not bode well to me.


----------



## Gunnar (10 Feb 2005)

The only reason they get away with promulgating their opinions to the students is because young people (having been kept artificially younger than their brains will allow) don't have the experience or training in argument to call bullshit on the prof.  It's always amusing to see a mature student in one of these lectures who does.  And it can cut both ways.  I saw an interesting interchange in my Industrial Relations class at University, where the prof had said one thing, and the mature student, a Union Steward, took him to task on it and systematically destroyed his "argument".

This incidentally, is largely why corporations lay off older workers in preference for the young.  It isn't "age discrimination" (as in, old people can't cut it).  It isn't (necessarily) because "they don't understand computers".  It's largely because they have self-respect, experience, and will not blindly follow stupid orders and allow themselves to be stabbed in the back by scheming superiors.  Their salary (or marks or whatever) aren't worth diminishing themselves to that level.

Why fight it?  Because it is important, and if you actually know what you're talking about, the utter destruction you can wreak on their misplaced "authority" is a very telling battle indeed.

So while I agree with A_majoor, I also disagree.  Just because holding an argument up to the light will destroy it is insufficient reason to ignore it....you need to do the "holding up to the light" once in a while.  It's a bit like teaching a pig to sing, I'll grant you:  It wastes your time, and annoys the pig....but it allows any audience that is around to see the pig for what it is:  a pig, who ain't never gonna sing, or educate...


----------



## pbi (10 Feb 2005)

Gunnar and a majoor: I have to confess to having kept out of most of the Political threads: I see all you guys moan about the resident idiots and I assume I would have a cardiac episode if I got too deeply involved. So, in that respect, I defer to your knowledge of that battlefield.

As far as the university environment, I guess it does depend on the nature of the person being subjected to the particular rant. I have also been to university (_nyaah nyahh  _  ) but as a mature student with 20 plus years as an officer. I enjoyed the experience of having as much or more "real world" experience as many of the profs, and I guess I have to agree that an alarmingly high percentage of the young civvy students have almost no frame of reference from which to judge or to discriminate. Some of them are apparently dimwits.

However, I do not think that this poses a danger to the quality of our officer candidates provided that they have been adequately selected for character and intelligence, and are getting some good military training parallel to the academia. The idea that they are automatically going to be corrupted is, I think, countered by the number of Res soldiers who I have spoken to who enjoy nothing better than crossing swords in their Universwity or college class by introducing reality or military experience to a class full of floppers. I do not think we should assume that we will be sucked in: rather we can take it as an opportunity to introduce our point of view and experience to them.

And then get the buggers out for an hour on the square. Filthy civvies.
 :rage:
Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2005)

> Nasrudin was caught in the act and sentenced to die. Hauled up before the king, he was asked by the Royal Presence: "Is there any reason at all why I shouldn't have your head off right now?" To which he replied: "Oh, King, live forever! Know that I, the mullah Nasrudin, am the greatest teacher in your kingdom, and it would surely be a waste to kill such a great teacher. So skilled am I that I could even teach your favorite horse to sing, given a year to work on it." The king was amused, and said: "Very well then, you move into the stable immediately, and if the horse isn't singing a year from now, we'll think of something interesting to do with you."
> 
> As he was returning to his cell to pick up his spare rags, his cellmate remonstrated with him: "Now *that* was really stupid. You know you can't teach that horse to sing, no matter how long you try." Nasrudin's response: "Not at all. I have a year now that I didn't have before. And a lot of things can happen in a year. The king might die. The horse might die. *I* might die.
> 
> "_And, who knows? Maybe the horse will sing_."



Well, I'm off to the stables again.....


----------



## mdh (10 Feb 2005)

Evening all,

As usual I come down somewhere in between.   I don't think academia succeeds in brainwashing the more intelligent undersgrads - but, as we would all agree, ideas have consequences, and this can impact social forces beyond academia. 

University campuses do appear to be hotbeds of resistance against the War on Terror - I have to admit being surprised at the enthusiasm accorded people like Mr. Churchill when I saw some TV news clips of him in action. 

I would suggest that universities do have a profound impact on culture and the shaping of social attitudes.   As PBI alluded to - there are a list of social mores are no longer acceptable today - and nearly all of them have been overturned by some degree of intellectual force and energy - often originating in the universities or some kind of intellectual elite (and I use this term very lightly).   

The obvious antecedent here is the campus ferment of the 1960s which ushered in a virtual cultural revolution.   

I'm currently peddling a pet theory (which I ran past PBI our resident wise owl) that we are in fact on the cusp of another upheaval - in part driven by reaction to the War on Terror, Iraq and Afghanistan in the US. 

I know this seems to be counter-intuitive with the landslide election of Bush, but bear with me.

I would suggest that the conservative political victory in the US is more apparent than real.   Although the Bush victory was attributed to the religious right and other factors of values and morality - it appears that the real reason was that most voters believed Bush was the most competent in managing the war.

As the war drags on, as casualties mount, as an exit strategy continues to elude the Bush presidency, it could be that the Ward Churchill's of the world achieve greater moral authority by sheer power of their convictions.   Or if you consider him too radical for the American Heartland there are more moderate opponents of the war. Remember that Kerry was not leading the Democrats as a the Party of peace, but as a leader who would prosecute the war more effectively.

This in turn could be exacerbated by the US military's recruitment and retention problems which, if this does reach crisis levels, (and I note PBI's caution on this) might force more draconian stop-loss measures or even a draft. A lot of returning veterans may less than enthusiastic about their experience in Iraq and add to a growing sense of frustration - and this in turn could impact the morale of the Army.

In sum, war weariness is a factor we need to take into account - and more weary you are, the more your cultural confidence is shaken, the more the eternal verities seem to be brought into ill-repute, the more likely you are to listen to dissenting points of view - which today are so graphically illustrated on American campuses in America.   

Patriotism in the US is a strong force - but it's also a pragmatic and elastic one, not to be confused with the more traditional nationalism of European states.

I know there are a lot of "ifs" here, but I wanted to float this with some others on this thread, cheers, mdh


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2005)

Historical analogy is quite risky, MDH. If I were to choose the historical analogy to fit this situation, it is Lincoln at the start of his second term of office. The population is war weary, but a few victories have prevented the "Peace Democrats" from winning the election and making a negotiated peace with the Confederacy. Lincoln, however, is determined to stay the course, and very soon Grant will launch a series of bloody offensives in the Eastern Theater, while Sherman is making plans for a march through Georgia to the sea.

As Victor Davis Hanson points out in many of his books and essays, the final months and even weeks of the war are often the worst, as the dying enemy regime commits its final energies in a spasm of violence, gambling on finding a weakness and preventing their final defeat.

Unthinking pessemism, or a refusal to see the changes on the ground have left a lot of people looking foolish (especially those who claimed the Afghanis and Iraqis were somehow not ready or willing to have elections), and even the military situation seems to be changing, with the Jihadi threat receding while conventional threats by state actors (Iran, N Korea and China come to mind) begin to come to the fore. People who are prepared to examine the evidence and draw conclusions based on that are the sort of people we need in charge, not people fixated on ideas which do not have a close correspondence to reality.


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Feb 2005)

Another rant against academia from a right-wing zealot. Goldblatt sounds about as credible as Churchill. To complain that there's no universal "truth" against which the social sciences measure things is ridiculous. Maybe we could establish some universal truth by which we can evaluate if a piece of music is "good" or not. 

As it is, and I can only speak for political science, scientific methodology is employed. Theorize a relationship, test relationship, etc. The difficulty is that you can't quantify most social factors and identification and elimination of all confounding variables, etc. is near impossible given the intricacy and complexity of society and human beings. How does one go about practically testing theories? Political scientists can't establish governments and expose them to stimuli, launch entire political movements and change characteristics to see what happens, etc. so there's always going to be times where theories don't measure up to experience. That's why the closest thing to a "law" there is in political science relates to something as focused as the effects of plurality voting systems on party formation. 

Of course, maybe we should take an ideological framework from the right and apply all conclusions and theories to that framework to test their validity. Maybe then we'd stop hearing the right whine about academia. My professors don't prosthelytize or indoctrinate us into a political ideology - in fact they steer clear of it quite purposefully. Is my own personal experience enough to generalize from, no, but going on that and the experiences of friends, I get the feeling the whole "academia is politically brainwashing students" argument to be baseless. The student body itself may perform that function but the professional institution itself certainly doesn't, from where I'm standing. Certain theories may dominate but that's because of their durability - take Realism in International Relations as an example. A more conservative-friendly theoretical framework, the theory may be more conducive to one ideology than another but that does not, in and of itself, make it politically biased.


----------



## Barek (11 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I get the feeling the whole "academia is politically brainwashing students" argument to be baseless



I can't say that I see any conspiracy of academics professors politically brainwashing students, but if you look at it from a different perspective. Most academics are taught to think in a certain manner via their higher learning. Thus, they tend to gravitate towards certain political ideoligies more than others. This can be seen sometimes as brainwashing as the academics see their way as "right" and "true" but is more just the general worldview that they tend to end up after being in the academic world for so many years.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> I do not think we should assume that we will be sucked in: rather we can take it as an opportunity to introduce our point of view and experience to them.



We all should, as people having a different worldview based upon our beliefs and experiences,  provide the other side to young students, of which I am one currently while awaiting my reg force application to go through, and the professors that there is another side. I personnally believe that experience counts for more than academics and that certain people are drawn to academics wheras others are given to trades and that these two groups generally differ without either being brainwashed. It is just that people of like minds group together and thus produce a common or like-minded world view.

So, that ends my long rant and my first post. Enjoy


----------



## clasper (11 Feb 2005)

> Yet I'd estimate ten percent of American college professors â â€ and I'm low-balling that figure â â€ would accept them as probably or at least partially true. (If you substitute "corporate capitalists" for "the United States government" in the first premise â â€ i.e. "Corporate capitalists are actively and intentionally engaged in genocide" â â€ assent among college faculty probably rises to 25 percent.)



This is where Goldblatt lost me.   Yes, Churchill is a nutjob, and there are other nutjobs in academia (as there are in all elements of society), but where do these 10% and 25% figures come from?   Is this a serious problem, or is he making a mountain out of a molehill?   I haven't been on campus in 10 years, so I don't really know what's going on in universities these days.   It would be nice to see some real evidence.

I guess that's just my hard science education showing itself... 

edit: Just as an example of professional nutjobbery in other elements of society (including tenured hard science types), does anyone remember Fleishmann and Pons discovering cold fusion in 1989?


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Feb 2005)

Barek said:
			
		

> I can't say that I see any conspiracy of academics professors politically brainwashing students, but if you look at it from a different perspective. Most academics are taught to think in a certain manner via their higher learning. Thus, they tend to gravitate towards certain political ideoligies more than others. This can be seen sometimes as brainwashing as the academics see their way as "right" and "true" but is more just the general worldview that they tend to end up after being in the academic world for so many years.



I agree - the structure of thought and approach to information that you're taught may very well affect your political leanings. That's not something to be blamed on academia. As it is, college grads voted for Bush and Kerry in equal numbers(http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html).

 If academia is brainwashing students into that oh-so-evil liberal way of thinking, it sure as hell isn't working. I wish it was. As it stands, the fact that the majority of the best educated people in the country tend to lean towards a political ideology (see post-grad stats) might hint at something to those opposing it.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (11 Feb 2005)

clasper said:
			
		

> Just as an example of professional nutjobbery in other elements of society (including tenured hard science types), does anyone remember Fleishmann and Pons discovering cold fusion in 1989?



The perfect example! Fleishmann and Pons made specific claims, *which could not be replicated or substantiated*. If today anyone thinks of them at all, it is usually with a derisive, "Oh, those guys".

Listening to presumably well educated people claiming OIF was to secure cheap oil, then looking at the spiking prices at the pumps *during the same time period* would indicate a severe disconnect between the theory ("invade to get cheap oil") and reality (Prices climbed to new highs). In the hard sciences, this sort of disconnect gets the theory discredited and bounced (cold fusion). I have not noticed a great diminution in the claims about fighting for oil, even on this board.....

Here is another example drawn from another "politicized" science topic, "global warming" (taken from "Chaos Manor")



> The exact same phenomenon is now occurring with anthropogenic global warming. Interview 100 climate scientists, and 99 will clearly state that (in the words of the IPCC's report, but NOT their political summary) that "there is no known correlation between human CO2 emissions and global temperature increases". However, the other one will jump up and down screaming that "The sky is falling, the sky is falling". Which of these two interviews is published/printed/broadcast?
> 
> Before I'll listen to anyone even express an opinion on anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, I've been asking them to take a simple, 3-question quiz for the past five years or so:
> 
> ...



Glorified Ape, social sciences "can" use scientific methodology, mostly through the study of history. As Thucydides said "but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content". There are very few things new under the sun, and understanding the cause of, say, the "Tulip Mania"  of the late 1600 or early 1700's offers a lot of insight into the "Internet Bubble" of the late 1990s. Even various organizing bodies and theories have a real life example somewhere, so the study of economic trends or health statistics comparing Imperial Russia with Victorian England (for example) will offer some insights on the relative efficiencies of a constitutional monarchy vs an autocratic empire.

Clasper, I don't know where Goldblat gets the 10-25% figures, I suspect it is anecdotal evidence based on speaking to a selection of University professors. It would be better if he gave the size and composition of the sample, etc., but perhaps you could do that as a research project?


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

It's funny to hear the pundits, experts and nay-sayers.

"The American's won't be able to fight the dreaded Mujihadeen who defeated the mighty Soviet Empire"

"The dreaded Afghan winter will be a major impediment to the Americans"

"The dreaded Iraqi summer will ruin the Campaign"

"Baghdad will be Stalingrad, bloodying the American forces"

No one seems to have faith in being able to accomplish the mission anymore, I wonder what we'll hear next?

"Iraq is Vietnam, the Americans will not be able to find an exit strategy!"


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Feb 2005)

No offense, but the word "science" has merely been co-opted by students of the political and social arts in a bid to gain a veneer of respectability.  There isn't much objective science involved.  The perception of political bias in academia stems from the divide between the world as some people would like it to be, and the world as it is.  Most idealized theories of political and social systems tend to be communitarian, but they are crafted in the sociopolitical equivalent of a frictionless universe - absence of the human factor.  It should not be surprising that academics who confine themselves to over-idealized views tend to communitarian political and social views.

The reason I state with confidence that the social and political arts are nearly bereft of objectivity is the pigheaded unwillingness of many people in the disciplines to acknowledge some simple, longstanding, empirical observations: freer peoples tend to prosper; and, free and prosperous peoples tend not to pick fights with others.  Yet there is no end of effort to try and fit the readily observable data and evidence to theories which advocate a large role for masters in one form or another.


----------



## mdh (11 Feb 2005)

No offense, but the word "science" has merely been co-opted by students of the political and social arts in a bid to gain a veneer of respectability.   There isn't much objective science involved.   The perception of political bias in academia stems from the divide between the world as some people would like it to be, and the world as it is.   Most idealized theories of political and social systems tend to be communitarian, but they are crafted in the sociopolitical equivalent of a frictionless universe - absence of the human factor.   It should not be surprising that academics who confine themselves to over-idealized views tend to communitarian political and social views.

The reason I state with confidence that the social and political arts are nearly bereft of objectivity is the pigheaded unwillingness of many people in the disciplines to acknowledge some simple, longstanding, empirical observations: freer peoples tend to prosper; and, free and prosperous peoples tend not to pick fights with others.   Yet there is no end of effort to try and fit the readily observable data and evidence to theories which advocate a large role for masters in one form or another.


Hi Brad/a-majoor - good posts,

And it's one reason why I think A-Majoor's criticism is too focused on academia.   While I stated above that universities can have a profound impact on society and culture I wonder if it's more accurate to call this what Pat Buchanan and the US conservatives would call it: the "Culture War" in the US. 

It seems to me that this is really the crux of this issue - radical left-wing university professors, the ACLU, the liberal media, activist judges, Hollywood, etc - all factor into a battle to redefine or reshape American social and political cultural norms and values. (In their view of the world).   The Janet Jackson episode is one of the many recent controversies that underscore that current tension.

(We're seeing a version of that Culture War being played out here in Canada over the same-sex debate.)

And while a-majoor is right that we should be careful about historical analogies, I still believe that we are seeing the second chapter in the cultural and social unrest that started in late 1960s - I would point to   1968 as the Year One - the start of the great dividing line that was sparked by the Vietnam war (although I should note that I do not believe Iraq is a second Vietnam) - the Ward Churchill's in this psycho-drama are very much of that generation, and the Iraq war provides them with another opportunity to launch a second crusade with the aim at re-establishing (and re-energizing) the political relevance of 1968. 

What is more interesting is that Churchill - otherwise an obscure academic - has managed to generate adoring and enthusiastic crowds. How did we get from the 9/11 - (which was a clear and morally unambiguous act of war, in effect a latter day Pearl Harbour) - to this? 

cheers, mdh


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> No offense, but the word "science" has merely been co-opted by students of the political and social arts in a bid to gain a veneer of respectability.   There isn't much objective science involved.   The perception of political bias in academia stems from the divide between the world as some people would like it to be, and the world as it is.   Most idealized theories of political and social systems tend to be communitarian, but they are crafted in the sociopolitical equivalent of a frictionless universe - absence of the human factor.   It should not be surprising that academics who confine themselves to over-idealized views tend to communitarian political and social views.
> 
> The reason I state with confidence that the social and political arts are nearly bereft of objectivity is the pigheaded unwillingness of many people in the disciplines to acknowledge some simple, longstanding, empirical observations: freer peoples tend to prosper; and, free and prosperous peoples tend not to pick fights with others.   Yet there is no end of effort to try and fit the readily observable data and evidence to theories which advocate a large role for masters in one form or another.



Have you studied poli sci?


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Have you studied poli sci?



Been There, Done That myself, and I completely agree with what Brad has said.

What's your point?


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Been There, Done That myself, and I completely agree with what Brad has said.



Strange, I don't find it accurate at all. One of his primary beefs seems to be "freer this that and the other thing make this but academia doesn't believe it" which is false. Off the top of my head I can recall topics such as stability and legitimacy of government being directly linked thereto, Democratic Peace Theory, etc. As for "idealized theories being communitarian", I didn't get that impression from reading Luther, Hobbes, Locke, Mill, etc. Marxism, sure, but that's been largely discounted except for drawing certain descriptive utility vis a vis socioeconomics. 

The whole "free people don't pick fights with others" is a pretty idea, but US, French, British, and numerous other foreign policies would suggest otherwise. If he'd said "democracies tend not to pick fights with other democracies", then there'd be some validity (hence Democratic Peace theory) but even then there are exceptions. 

Arguing the supremacy of ultra-atomistic, "free" societies is just as absurd as arguing uber-communitarian society's supremacy. Both are black and white arguments, not recognizing that both sides have valuable elements and an ideal likely rests somewhere in between. Or are we going to accept Anarchy as the ideal simply because it's "free"? As for poli sci using a "veneer" of science to gain respectability, it employs the scientific method to gain validity, not acceptance, though the latter stems from the former. 

With the exception of political philosophy classes, which are a minority, the whole "see society in ideals/as we'd like it to be" is completely inaccurate. Poli sci courses in International Relations, Comparitive Politics, regional studies, Strategic Studies, etc. DESCRIBE more than they seek to explain - that's where theory comes in and the ones that survive and do the best are the ones that fit reality the best. The typical structure is to describe the crap out of a phenomenon then cover the theories that seek to explain it, pointing out their weak and strong points in relation to the information. To argue poli sci doesn't try to reflect reality is ridiculous - theories are tested and formed based on information from "reality" - IE what has already happened. I'm sure poli scientists would like to be able to make entire societies and have them interact with other manufactured societies but we can't - governments and countries aren't baking soda and vinegar in a test-tube. 

Maybe your university and mine have differing approaches to teaching but Brad's description of poli sci doesn't fit my experience, both personal and from reading the work of poli sci academics, at all.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Feb 2005)

>Have you studied poli sci?

Do you mean, have I any credentials such as a BA?  No.  Or are you merely wondering if I read anything besides TV guide?  If this is just going to be a puffy-chest contest over credentialism, we can end it here.

>One of his primary beefs seems to be "freer this that and the other thing make this but academia doesn't believe it" which is false.

My observation is that a disproportionately large number of poli and soc students and educators tend to lean left, favouring considerable government involvement in the life of citizens beyond the necessary function of safeguarding rights.  Infanteer is a notable exception.  I am at a loss to explain this if they claim to be "scientific".  Either people with greater personal, economic, and political liberty are more prosperous and less inclined to covet what others have, or they are not.  If the former is the case, it would behoove any objective observer to promote the greatest possible individual freedom and maintain constant vigilance over the regulations and agencies created to constrain abuses.

Government doesn't have to be very democratic to be stable - I in fact incline to share the belief of those who aver that unrestrained democracy is ultimately the source of its own demise.  Legitimacy is merely a concept of definition.

I agree there are numerous thinkers who have proposed ideal societies which enshrine individualism.  But, that's not at issue.  It is current orthodox academic views which we are discussing.  If I interview the faculty of the poli and soc departments of any Canadian university, which way do you think I'll find them leaning: communitarianism, or individualism?

>The whole "free people don't pick fights with others" is a pretty idea, but US, French, British, and numerous other foreign policies would suggest otherwise.

I wrote about free and prosperous peoples, not governments.

>Arguing the supremacy of ultra-atomistic, "free" societies is just as absurd as arguing uber-communitarian society's supremacy.

I did not attempt to make that argument.  My argument is simply this: first, the dominant or popular ideas in academia are communitarian which accounts for an observed "left" political bias; second, historical evidence indicates we should lean to the individualism side of the spectrum; finally, if theories conflict with observed reality, claims to scientific objectivity are invalid.  All you need to do to change my mind is to convince me of any one of the following:

1) Communitarian ideas are not the dominant orthodoxy in academia.
2) I am misinterpreting evidence which I believe shows that people who enjoy greater liberties (political, economic, individual) tend to be more prosperous and harder to goad to war.

To claim scientific objectivity means more than to claim to use scientific methods - you actually have to go where the data, evidence, and logical thought processes take you even when it offends your ideological predispositions.  A sound theory explains all observations and has predictive value.  When we rely on intuition and educated guesswork, we call it an "art".


----------



## Britney Spears (11 Feb 2005)

Pfft, you old fogeys are all the same. What was it that Churchiill (Winston, not whoever it is you're talking about) said?  If a young man is not a liberal, then he has no heart, if an old man is not a conservative, he has no brain?

Now one of you should come up with a robust theory to explain this phenomenon. God knows I'm too lazy to do it. Otherwise I think we are straying dangerously into dead horse land.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2005)

Check the differing treatment of these two men, one a serious and credentialed scholar, and the other the individual we are talking about. You will see what sort of alternative universe the academic "Left" (to shorthand it) is coming from:



> *Masters of the Game*
> The Left on Churchill and Summers.
> 
> If you're a liberal who's still moping like a dog whose food bowl has been moved, thanks to all the conservative victories of late, I have some words of encouragement for you: You guys are still way, way smarter than we are about some things.
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (12 Feb 2005)

...and you can understand why the US, with regards to it's current assertive foreign policy, isn't kow-towing to the current academic bleating.

It's easy when one has tenure to sit, read a book, a criticize anything - but when you are a senior American administrative official and you are responsible for National Security interests, all you can do is say "FUCK YOU" (to France, Harvard, Berkley, Ward Churchill, or CBS) and do your job the best way you can.


----------



## CivU (12 Feb 2005)

"free and prosperous peoples tend not to pick fights with others"

Last time I checked America is *the* free and prosperous nation...


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Feb 2005)

Last time I checked the US was not quick to enter WWI or WWII, did not have the heart to see Vietnam to a proper finish, didn't really want to be in the Balkans, and at least by approximately 50% didn't or doesn't want to be in Iraq.  As I wrote, don't confuse peoples with governments.


----------



## mdh (12 Feb 2005)

As an aside, there is one academic who has exercised enormous influence over the current White House, Leo Strauss, a major figure - if not the major figure -   at the University of Chicago. He is not a "communitarian" philosopher, and that influence has shaped the outlook of several architects of the Iraq War including Paul Wolfowitz. 

"Some of the themes Wolfowitz sounded when he talked about foreign policy carried clear overtones of Straussian thinking; his emphasis on stopping tyranny and condemning evil; the notion that dictatorships operate in fundamental different ways from democracies; the believe that liberal democracies can be fooled by a dictator's elaborate deceptions. Wolfowitz applied these ideas first to the Soviet Union and the cold war, and then years later, to Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

From Michael Mann's excellent history of Bush's Whitehouse:_ The Rise of the Vulcan's: The History of Bush's War Cabinet._

Cheers, mdh


----------



## CivU (12 Feb 2005)

"As I wrote, don't confuse peoples with governments."

In a democracy, is the government not the embodiment of the people?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Feb 2005)

NO,not unless you want an election-type vote on every decision......

...and for Mr. Majoors article on Churchill and Summers,......thats the new reality, unfortunetly. Yesterday I heard a McDonalds commercial on the radio were the guy was givig his wife/girlfriend some smart-ass answers and she says "One more and you get smacked"...............try reversing that and watch.....


----------



## Infanteer (12 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> "As I wrote, don't confuse peoples with governments."
> 
> In a democracy, is the government not the embodiment of the people?



You obviously fail to understand how a representative democracy works and cannot see what Brad Sallows is getting at.

Maybe I'll phone my uncle in California and ask how his strategic planning for Iraq is coming along, perhaps he's being hampered by decisions on the budget or by having to deal with UN bureaucrats.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Feb 2005)

....I get it and ,.............WOW,....I've never taken a course on poli sci......


----------



## Infanteer (12 Feb 2005)

Trust me Bruce, there has been more critical discussions here then any Poli Sci course that I ever had.  Maybe we can print you off an Honourary Degree from Army.ca in Political Science....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Feb 2005)

*hears the mischievous laugh of a Bobbitt whirling his mouse around something called "photoshop"?*


----------



## mdh (12 Feb 2005)

Having been deeply involved with the political process myself, there is only one scientific principle in politics that has any predictive value : power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And Lord Acton wasn't a political scientist, cheers, all, mdh


----------



## Glorified Ape (12 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Have you studied poli sci?
> 
> Do you mean, have I any credentials such as a BA?   No.   Or are you merely wondering if I read anything besides TV guide?   If this is just going to be a puffy-chest contest over credentialism, we can end it here.



Not at all, just curious as to whether you had any actual experience in the field. That being said, when I start telling Infanteer the ins and outs of a section attack.... 



> >One of his primary beefs seems to be "freer this that and the other thing make this but academia doesn't believe it" which is false.
> 
> My observation is that a disproportionately large number of poli and soc students and educators tend to lean left, favouring considerable government involvement in the life of citizens beyond the necessary function of safeguarding rights.   Infanteer is a notable exception.   I am at a loss to explain this if they claim to be "scientific".   Either people with greater personal, economic, and political liberty are more prosperous and less inclined to covet what others have, or they are not.   If the former is the case, it would behoove any objective observer to promote the greatest possible individual freedom and maintain constant vigilance over the regulations and agencies created to constrain abuses.



It wouldn't shock me, assuming the stats were available, to find many poli sci and sociology students and faculty are "left leaning". How "left leaning" necessarily translates into "communitarian" is beyond me. If by left leaning you mean communist, then yes - communitarian they are. I'm left leaning, a poli sci student, and I wouldn't say I'm a communitarian. Am I a libertarian? No. Political ideology isn't divided as cleanly as "left = socialist communitarian, right = neo-liberal governmental reductionist". You say "the greatest POSSIBLE individual freedom" - therein lies the debate - what's acceptably functional and "possible". It's a matter of opinion. Moderate regulation by a government isn't inconsistent with the traditional liberal value of the individual, nor is a large degree of government regulation, depending on which areas it's focused in. Heavy government regulation of transportation doesn't hinder individual realisation and expression. Heavy government regulation of speech and religion/thought does. What constitutes "heavy" or "light" is debatable. 

To say political science isn't "scientific" because it has left-leaning constituents is absolutely ridiculous. You premise the entire argument on some unsubstantiated "impression" of non-compliance with an unsubstantiated, unproven theory you believe is correct. How scientific is that?



> Government doesn't have to be very democratic to be stable - I in fact incline to share the belief of those who aver that unrestrained democracy is ultimately the source of its own demise.   Legitimacy is merely a concept of definition.



Legitimacy is the people's perception that the government has a right to govern them. By electing a government, you achieve legitimacy. You can achieve it otherwise, but in this day and age the easiest method is democratic election since there aren't many who still believe heredity confers right. 

You can have stable non-democratic government, yes. The expense of it is quite substantial. 



> I agree there are numerous thinkers who have proposed ideal societies which enshrine individualism.   But, that's not at issue.   It is current orthodox academic views which we are discussing.   If I interview the faculty of the poli and soc departments of any Canadian university, which way do you think I'll find them leaning: communitarianism, or individualism?



I'd say individual, from my experiences with professors. 



> >The whole "free people don't pick fights with others" is a pretty idea, but US, French, British, and numerous other foreign policies would suggest otherwise.
> 
> I wrote about free and prosperous peoples, not governments.



Well, since we haven't really had free and prosperous peoples WITHOUT a government, can you elaborate with an example? Free peoples in Britain, France, and the US all re-elected governments engaged in "picking fights" in one way or another. Or did you mean we haven't had hordes of free and prosperous people washing violently over other people in some leaderless, inarticulate but autonomous mob. Sounds like the period of western expansion in the US, though I don't think the exact mob you're describing has ever existed. 



> >Arguing the supremacy of ultra-atomistic, "free" societies is just as absurd as arguing uber-communitarian society's supremacy.
> 
> I did not attempt to make that argument.   My argument is simply this: first, the dominant or popular ideas in academia are communitarian which accounts for an observed "left" political bias; second, historical evidence indicates we should lean to the individualism side of the spectrum; finally, if theories conflict with observed reality, claims to scientific objectivity are invalid.



No, the theory is invalid. Scientific objectivity is only invalidated when clearly false theories are still advanced as true. I haven't seen any of this in the work of poli sci academics. Perhaps you have a specific theory in mind? Vague assertions of personal subscription to "communitarian" ideas by unnamed and unquantified members of the field isn't really sufficient. 



> All you need to do to change my mind is to convince me of any one of the following:
> 
> 1) Communitarian ideas are not the dominant orthodoxy in academia.



Lets see, in international relations the dominant ideology (judging from what's taught most) is Realism, which asserts that states (even ones with free and prosperous peoples) act in an atomistic fashion to maximize their own security and that said security is achieved in a zero-sum exchange where gain by one entails loss by another. That's pretty individualistic. 

For everything from international relations to electoral dynamics, you have Rational Choice theory which focuses on the individual as a rational decision-maker with _quantifiable_ preferences, subconsciously and consciously rank-ordered which they'll attempt to realise sequentially by said rank. Pretty individual there too.

Neither theory is perfect, nor can either theory be disproven completely. In fact, both are relatively successful in explaining historical events and in predicting future events. 

If you mean specific political ideologies, I wouldn't even be able to hazard a guess seeing as how professors don't usually discuss their own political preferences with us. 



> 2) I am misinterpreting evidence which I believe shows that people who enjoy greater liberties (political, economic, individual) tend to be more prosperous and harder to goad to war.



Prosperous, yes. I'm not sure what you mean by "harder to goad to war". Do you mean it's harder for the government to convince the population to go to war? If so, then yes - it is harder since in non-democratic countries the government doesn't have to worry about convincing the people since it doesn't rely on popular support for its legitimacy or power. If you mean that they're more unwilling to go to war, we can't really know for sure since undemocratic countries don't poll their people prior to starting or participating in a war, nor do they during it. 

Judging by sheer number of wars and violent acts engaged in, "free peoples" are often more than willing to war and pick fights, they just tend not to do it with each other. Didn't take too much to convince the US population to go into Iraq did it? Or Afghanistan. 



> To claim scientific objectivity means more than to claim to use scientific methods - you actually have to go where the data, evidence, and logical thought processes take you even when it offends your ideological predispositions.



Yes, that's scientific objectivity - I know. That fact is why I'm sure there exist many a conflicted personally leftist, professionally Realist professors. 



> A sound theory explains all observations and has predictive value.   When we rely on intuition and educated guesswork, we call it an "art".



Indeed. Perhaps you could demonstrate where political science relies on intuition and guesswork.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Not at all, just curious as to whether you had any actual experience in the field. That being said, when I start telling Infanteer the ins and outs of a section attack....



If you think reading books and listening to someone with tenure talk for 50 minutes, 3 days a week constitutes "experience in the field", you are sadly mistaken.   One does not have to go to University to be read books and be considered "experienced" with political thought.

Come off your high-horse.



> Neither theory is perfect, nor can either theory be disproven completely. In fact, both are relatively successful in explaining historical events and in predicting future events.



Looking back on my undergraduate experience, I can firmly say that Political Science (or any other Liberal Art) is *NOT* a "science" what-so-ever for the simple reason that it is predicated on human behaviour, which is erratic, irrational, and relative to a numerous amount of factors.   For the most part, it is subjective analysis of certain aspects of human behaviour, which is probably the most complex "chaotic system" out there.   Even economics, which likes to revert to closed systems, cannot get around the fact that "Supply" and "Demand" are linked to the fact that human beings, for any particular reason that strikes them, may decide one day that they don't want to by Tampex Tampons.

Scientific Laws (Law of Conservation of Mass) are based upon indisputable grounds backed by observable phenomon*a*.

Scientific Theory (The Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory) are again based on observation of phenonmen*a*, but lack the conclusive body of evidence and may insufficiently address the topic to be considered a law.

Politics, economics, sociology, etc, etc is based on human behaviour.   Although there are trends ("power corrupts", "free people prosper"), none of these are verifiable as they are based on subjective evaluations of only a portion of the human experience.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Feb 2005)

Additionally.  One does not have to be communitarian to be "left-wing" or "left-of-center", and one can be "right-of-center" and espouse communitarian beliefs - I spent a semester studying the works of John Rawls and the majority of his Communitarian critics were far from "left-wing" (and, subsequently, Rawls' atomism was far from "right-of-center" or Libertarian).

However, considering that this course was the only one in UBC's small Political Theory branch and that Native Studies, Feminist Studies, etc, etc all have established departments at the University with large faculties - Brad Sallows is bang on with his proposition that the mainstream academic dialogue is dominated by communitarian, left-of-center thinkers.

Alone, this is not a troubling factor; different schools get their "time on the mike".  However, what I find alarming is that this dominance seems so out-of-touch with the current situation and how many (if not most) western citizens feel and that this "School of thought" seems downright aggressively opposed to counter-thought by resorting to "PC censorship" through attacks like racist, biggot, misogynist, imperialist, etc, etc.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2005)

This "picked a fight" thing is really starting to get to me. Just like "Cold Fusion", this is a case where the overwhelming preponderence of evidence is simply at odds with what is being described. Yes, in the past, the Democratic nations have invaded or meddled in the affairs of other nations, although the historical context of the Cold War would suggest that *most of the cases since 1945 were undertaken as part of a larger geo-political strategy to contain an agressive USSR; which clearly was "picking a fight".* During this time, Britan did NOT invade France, West Germany, Japan, Argentina and so on.

(An aside. I do not belive that history is "clean", the 20th century in my view includes several entangled episodes, from the "Fall of the Eagles" (unwinding of the Imperial system, which continued in a small way until the Portugese finally left Africa in the 1970s) to the "Fight against Socialism", which started in 1918 with the allied invasion of Bolshevick Russia, and ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Indochina involved both the Eagles [France vs the Viet Mihn], and the fight against the socialists [American involvement from 1960-1975])

Since 1979, the Jihadis (AKA Islamofascists) have been "picking a fight" with Western civilization, from the taking of US diplomats as hostages in Tehran in 1979, to violent terrorism in the 1980's, through to the 1990's when Embassys, Military accomodations and even docked US warships were attacked with seeming impunity (After the USS Cole bombing, a member of the Clinton cabinet reputedly said no action was to be undertaken because it "was not provocative enough"). Emboldened, they undertook the most audacious mission on a bright morning in September of 2001...you may remember pictures of civillians who decided that junping from a 1000' office window was prefferable to being burned alive inside the World Trade Center.

So:Assertation "Democratic nations _do_ pick fights with other nations"
     Factual evidence: "Islamofascist Jihadis, believing the decadent West was unable or unwilling to oppose their plans, carried out increasingly violent attacks on Western and particulary US targets, resulting in war"

Result *(in science)*  The assertation is demonstrably false, and will no longer be considered
         *(in academia)* We'll just keep saying it anyway


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Feb 2005)

>Perhaps you could demonstrate where political science relies on intuition and guesswork.

Put it this way: if a luminary in the community announces a prediction of a political outcome, and someone were to ask to see his equations and the data used as initial conditions...would there be any?


----------



## Infanteer (13 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> So:Assertation "Democratic nations _do_ pick fights with other nations"
> Factual evidence: "Islamofascist Jihadis, believing the decadent West was unable or unwilling to oppose their plans, carried out increasingly violent attacks on Western and particulary US targets, resulting in war"
> 
> Result *(in science)*   The assertation is demonstrably false, and will no longer be considered
> *(in academia)* We'll just keep saying it anyway



Arthur, I'm going to disagree with you on some of this.

See, this is where Political Science or any other gage of human activity cannot be a science because this is a subjective value judgement based on human behaviour.

A true scientific "law" is undisputable, regardless of where one stands.   If one measures the mass before and after a chemical reaction, they will get the same result, regardless of whether they do it in Beijing, New York, or Baghdad.   This is why Science can prove "Laws", the evidence is undisputable.

A true scientific "theory" is disputable, but is again based upon hard evidence.   Despite what different arguments against "The Theory of Evolution" may be, it cannot get rid of the fact that in China, the USA, and in Africa, we did fossils of species that have not existed since Man started to record his history.   Since it is a theory, there are very valid disputes about the reason for this, but the evidence is still there and must be considered.

Now, gauging and studying human behaviour can NEVER be this assertive because it is based entirely on an input of subjective values and interpretations.   You say that *"Islamofascist Jihadis, believing the decadent West was unable or unwilling to oppose their plans, carried out increasingly violent attacks on Western and particularly US targets, resulting in war"* - this may seem like "the truth" or "Law" to us, but to someone sitting in Riyadh, maybe it is *"Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, us Arabs have been the whipping boy of the Western powers from Israel to putting Oil companies in the Holy Land - Allah Akbar!"*.   People can rationalize that, and to them it is an equal "truth" and "Law" to the first statement.

Hell, one could say that things like views towards the Holocaust were based on subjective statement of value.   Most of the population found it as the most vile form of morally reprehensible activity to date, and for good reason.   But many people found mass murder on this scale to be appropriate and required - these were the Nazi's who manned the camps and signed off on the orders to use them.   A good chunk of the Soviet Union didn't seem to mind pulling equally vicious pogroms and the like, murdering countless scores of people.

There is no moral "absolutes" or "laws", hence social "science" is based mostly off of trends and is in the eye of the beholder.

Where does this leave us, wondering adrift in an ocean of "right" and "wrong"?   Well, as far as I see it, human behaviour is underscored by another intangible thing, Will.   What is right and wrong is clearly decided by those who have the Will to make it so.   If Nazi Germany would have been victorious, I'm sure all our shared experience in the HitlerJugend would lead us to conclude that the "Jewish Question" was adequately answered by the "Final Solution" (frightening, but probable - look how Japan got away with its atrocities and basically chooses to ignore them now).   Clearly, this is another testament of Will. 

Clearly, there are two "trends" that our Political and Social studies can highlight that would make sense to most of our fellow citizens.

1)   One is that, under the aegis of freedom and prosperity, the Will of the liberal democratic West has been strong enough to overcome Absolutism, Fascism, Communism.   I have strong conviction that it will no doubt crush the equally repressive ideology of virulent Fundamentalism - why?   Because the general trend is that free people prosper and that people with fetters on (whether they be physical or not) desire to be free.

2)   The members of virulent Fundamentalist groups have displayed the trend of becoming increasingly aggressive and violent towards the Western liberal democratic order through increased attacks against both military and civilian targets.   They are attempting to further push assert their Will on us.

Now, most of us have come off the fence and will and choose to back the liberal democratic order - Why?   *Because in the liberal democratic atmosphere of freedom and prosperity, we've decided that the individual human being is accorded the greatest amount of dignity that can be afforded.*   Whether it be for family, kin-group, community or country, this principle is the same and underscores the reason why I fight.   It justifies and underscores the Western Will to Power.

This is only my subjective interpretation and the Fundamentalist is liable to disagree, believing dignity will be accorded when Submission is carried out through strict adherence to the Koran (just as past opponents relied on adherence to Bolshevism, Mein Kampf, or the Divine Right of Kings - *This is not to put the Book of Islam on a similar level to those works, only to point out that Fundamenalist outlook shares to trait of forcing others to look to some written work for their guidence instead of deciding for themselves what is best for them and their family*).   This is not a battle of Good and Evil based upon scientific analysis of morality (which can't be done) - it is a Contest of Wills.

I am confident of the fact that in this contest of wills, I am backed by most of the people of both Canada (and the West) who choose to stand on the same moral ground as I do.   While my will is backed by the moral, industrial, and political support of the representatives of Western peoples, the enemy must slink around in caves, possessing no real firm basis for moral support, and relying on underhanded tactics of targeting civilians through terror.   Again, this is why I know that me and my fellows will be victorious.

My view on people who chose not to come off the Fence (not on Iraq or any specific matter, but against the Western Liberal democratic order in general) is that they are moral shills of the highest order.   By sitting on their (mostly tenured) fence, they preach their world view but will never come down off that fence to back up their beliefs in a Contest of Wills.   Even the poor guy sent in by the Mullah or the desperate German youth is on a higher plane then these clowns, because at least they had the courage to put their Will (and thus their moral outlook) to the test.

It doesn't really bother me at all that people who detest the liberal democratic order continue to bleat (which tends to become a little louder as we make our Moral Stand), because I know they are harmless because people like Churchill and Co. have no real moral authority and do not have the courage to back it up.   As such, they will be irrelevant in the long run while I can be assured that my Moral Stand in this latest Test of Wills will ensure that my family and my fellow Canadians will continue to exist under the aegis of the peace and prosperity.

Of course, that's my moral outlook, and you may disagree.   But in doing so, you should question yourself to see if you're sitting on the fence with Ward Churchill.

Infanteer.


----------



## CivU (13 Feb 2005)

"If you think reading books and listening to someone with tenure talk for 50 minutes, 3 days a week constitutes "experience in the field", you are sadly mistaken.  One does not have to go to University to be read books and be considered "experienced" with political thought."

If this is the case, then you are suggesting one cannot be experienced in section attacks without ever having executed one when engaging a real enemy.  Furthermore, this suggests tha you can go through the motions all you want during SQ and BIQ and throughout time in Battalion, but until you actually experience the real thing in a theatre of operations you have no basis in it whatsoever.  

Reading countless books, attending lectures, debates and speakers for an undergrad and/or graduate programs would constitute experience in the field of Political Studies/Political Science or any other academic genre for that matter.  Where else would you gain any more experience?


----------



## Infanteer (13 Feb 2005)

As usual, you've completely missed the point.



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> If this is the case, then you are suggesting one cannot be experienced in section attacks without ever having executed one when engaging a real enemy. Furthermore, this suggests tha you can go through the motions all you want during SQ and BIQ and throughout time in Battalion, but until you actually experience the real thing in a theatre of operations you have no basis in it whatsoever.



How do I suggest this, because I've certainly never said this (otherwise I'd be discrediting most of the Infantry Corps)?   Please explain how my posts say this, because its starting to sound like you're putting words into my mouth.

If you can follow the general line, you'll see that I assert that just as combat is not the only place to learn a section attack, university is not the only place to learn about political issues.



> Reading countless books, attending lectures, debates and speakers for an undergrad and/or graduate programs would constitute experience in the field of Political Studies/Political Science or any other academic genre for that matter. Where else would you gain any more experience?



Are you implying that University is the only atmosphere where one can read, debate, and critically think about issues of theory and governance?

Your tone seems to imply that you feel as if you're one of Plato's "Philsopher Kings" because you're hanging around a campus and getting an undergraduate degree.   I know plenty of intelligent and experienced people, many who are members of this forum, that are articulate and have a good grounding in the aspects of political thought who've yet to set foot on a campus.

Quit taking yourself so seriously.


----------



## CivU (14 Feb 2005)

As usual, you weren't willing to read what I was stating.

I was implying that just as the army is the ideal place to learn about a section attack, a university is the ideal place to develop knowledge on issues of academia.  They may not be the only places, but they are both the best.


----------



## Glorified Ape (14 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Perhaps you could demonstrate where political science relies on intuition and guesswork.
> 
> Put it this way: if a luminary in the community announces a prediction of a political outcome, and someone were to ask to see his equations and the data used as initial conditions...would there be any?



Data? Most likely. Equations - that depends. If he used Game Theory or Rational Choice theory (they're connected) then he could very well have equations, since both use mathematics.  



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> This "picked a fight" thing is really starting to get to me. Just like "Cold Fusion", this is a case where the overwhelming preponderence of evidence is simply at odds with what is being described. Yes, in the past, the Democratic nations have invaded or meddled in the affairs of other nations, although the historical context of the Cold War would suggest that *most of the cases since 1945 were undertaken as part of a larger geo-political strategy to contain an agressive USSR; which clearly was "picking a fight".* During this time, Britan did NOT invade France, West Germany, Japan, Argentina and so on.



That's a severely biased and non-scientific description. What the motivations of the "fight pickers" were is irrelevant, unless we were trying to determine what CAUSES fights to be picked, as opposed simply to whether they were "picked", IE initiated. 



> (An aside. I do not belive that history is "clean", the 20th century in my view includes several entangled episodes, from the "Fall of the Eagles" (unwinding of the Imperial system, which continued in a small way until the Portugese finally left Africa in the 1970s) to the "Fight against Socialism", which started in 1918 with the allied invasion of Bolshevick Russia, and ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Indochina involved both the Eagles [France vs the Viet Mihn], and the fight against the socialists [American involvement from 1960-1975])



Clean? I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. 



> Since 1979, the Jihadis (AKA Islamofascists) have been "picking a fight" with Western civilization, from the taking of US diplomats as hostages in Tehran in 1979, to violent terrorism in the 1980's, through to the 1990's when Embassys, Military accomodations and even docked US warships were attacked with seeming impunity (After the USS Cole bombing, a member of the Clinton cabinet reputedly said no action was to be undertaken because it "was not provocative enough"). Emboldened, they undertook the most audacious mission on a bright morning in September of 2001...you may remember pictures of civillians who decided that junping from a 1000' office window was prefferable to being burned alive inside the World Trade Center.



What this has to do with the fact that democratic, "free" nations pick fights with other countries is beyond me. 



> So:Assertation "Democratic nations _do_ pick fights with other nations"
> Factual evidence: "Islamofascist Jihadis, believing the decadent West was unable or unwilling to oppose their plans, carried out increasingly violent attacks on Western and particulary US targets, resulting in war"
> 
> Result *(in science)*  The assertation is demonstrably false, and will no longer be considered
> *(in academia)* We'll just keep saying it anyway



What? You're going to scientifically disprove an assertion that "democratic nations do pick fights with other nations", which is undeniably correct (regardless of justification, etc) by pointing to "factual evidence" which consists of your personal subjective interpretation of actors' motivations, combined with an assertion that one debatable case of the aforementioned non-state actors picking a fight with a democratic state disproves the entirety of history in which a democratic country has initiated war against another country. 

Now we'll use this absurdity to prove, without evidence, that academia is unscientific because it, in its entirety, is advancing (as though it comprises some huge majority of academia's attention) the notion that democratic countries attack other countries, which is true. 

Wow. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Additionally.  One does not have to be communitarian to be "left-wing" or "left-of-center", and one can be "right-of-center" and espouse communitarian beliefs - I spent a semester studying the works of John Rawls and the majority of his Communitarian critics were far from "left-wing" (and, subsequently, Rawls' atomism was far from "right-of-center" or Libertarian).



Haven't studied Rawls so I'll take your word on it. I agree with everything you just said - traditional conservatism being a prime example of right-wing political ideology which is communitarian. 



> However, considering that this course was the only one in UBC's small Political Theory branch and that Native Studies, Feminist Studies, etc, etc all have established departments at the University with large faculties - Brad Sallows is bang on with his proposition that the mainstream academic dialogue is dominated by communitarian, left-of-center thinkers.



Left-of-center, quite possibly. Communitarian vs. Individualistic, who knows - I haven't seen any figures on it and can only go on my own experience which is that I haven't found professors to be very communitarian. If our university professors are anything like those in the US, then a majority (I believe it was about 54% which voted for Kerry) are leftist, if one takes voting preference as a reflection of ideology (which isn't always the case but I think it's a strong enough relationship to be safe). 

You may be right about UBC, I don't know - I haven't studied there. 



> Alone, this is not a troubling factor; different schools get their "time on the mike".  However, what I find alarming is that this dominance seems so out-of-touch with the current situation and how many (if not most) western citizens feel and that this "School of thought" seems downright aggressively opposed to counter-thought by resorting to "PC censorship" through attacks like racist, biggot, misogynist, imperialist, etc, etc.



I agree again - I think it's dangerous to restrict professor's studies and assertions solely because they don't jive with what colleagues and PC society deem acceptable. That's assuming the professors can back up their assertions. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> If you think reading books and listening to someone with tenure talk for 50 minutes, 3 days a week constitutes "experience in the field", you are sadly mistaken.  One does not have to go to University to be read books and be considered "experienced" with political thought.
> 
> Come off your high-horse.



I'm not on a "high-horse", I'm just pointing out that if one doesn't have any experience with a field (especially a specific aspect of a field, such as the professionals therein) and starts making assertions about it, such assertions are suspect. I'm not saying his arguments aren't articulate or intelligent, just that I don't find them to be accurate or reflective of political science. 



> Looking back on my undergraduate experience, I can firmly say that Political Science (or any other Liberal Art) is *NOT* a "science" what-so-ever for the simple reason that it is predicated on human behaviour, which is erratic, irrational, and relative to a numerous amount of factors.  For the most part, it is subjective analysis of certain aspects of human behaviour, which is probably the most complex "chaotic system" out there.  Even economics, which likes to revert to closed systems, cannot get around the fact that "Supply" and "Demand" are linked to the fact that human beings, for any particular reason that strikes them, may decide one day that they don't want to by Tampex Tampons.



I agree - the human factor makes things difficult. That doesn't mean that anything associated or focused on human behaviour can't be a science - psychology being the most obvious example. Anything employing the scientific method in its study can be called a "science". 



> Scientific Laws (Law of Conservation of Mass) are based upon indisputable grounds backed by observable phenomon*a*.
> 
> Scientific Theory (The Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory) are again based on observation of phenonmen*a*, but lack the conclusive body of evidence and may insufficiently address the topic to be considered a law.
> 
> Politics, economics, sociology, etc, etc is based on human behaviour.  Although there are trends ("power corrupts", "free people prosper"), none of these are verifiable as they are based on subjective evaluations of only a portion of the human experience.



Indeed - as I'm sure you'll remember there are no "laws" in political science, with the possible exception of Duverge's Law (after Ryker's reformation of it). That doesn't mean poli sci isn't a science. I can't say for sure since I'm not a psych student but I haven't heard any immutable "laws" of psychology either (again, I could be wrong) but I think it still qualifies as a science.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> As usual, you weren't willing to read what I was stating.



Actually, I did - and it was complete drek.



> I was implying that just as the army is the ideal place to learn about a section attack, a university is the ideal place to develop knowledge on issues of academia.   They may not be the only places, but they are both the best.



Nope.

Military tactics are a specific tradecraft that are usually only available in professional military forces.   As you said, it is usually an ideal place to learn them because you can't cruise down the street and get a course on small unit tactics (private organizations do offer this, but usually to a limited market).

However, "reading books" is not something unique to a University - it does not take much to go to Chapters, buy Rousseau, Marx, and De Toqueville and spend a little time thinking about the arguments (maybe writing them down in the process).   Likewise, universities do not have the monopoly on debate and discussion; there are numerous places in Civil Society where one can do this (eg: citizens' forums, internet bulletin boards, book clubs, private organizations, or simply getting involved in local/national politics by running).

You seem to think that by going to University, one becomes a SME akin to an Infantry Sergeant and his tactics.   Wrong.   Learning something is not, and never was, the strict domain of Universities.   Since the actual intent of a University is to encourage critical thinking as opposed to teaching a specific genre, to hold a monopoly would mean that these skills are not practiced, utilized, or exercised outside of the campus environment.   You'd be hard-pressed to prove that.

If you don't believe me and feel that University imparts some sort of expertise that others lack by not attending, then since you are still an undergrad in university and I've BTDT, I'm telling you as a SME that you're out to lunch.


----------



## Glorified Ape (14 Feb 2005)

So you're arguing that you get the same quality of education from reading a book as you do attending a course, with the book(s), and receiving instruction from someone with at least 7+ years in the field?


----------



## CivU (14 Feb 2005)

You can learn about the military and military tactics from books, documentaries, open-forum discussions with military experts or leaders, any number of civilian sources.  However, this is not the best way to learn about specific military procedures.

You could pick up a book by Nietzsche and read it, but would you gain the same depth of understanding as you would if you had attended lectures, tutorial discussions, read other sources necessary to compile a research paper,a nd written numerous tests and a final examination on the subject.  Undoubtedly, no.

I guess my "complete drek" was once again misinterpreted. I'll reiterate. They may not be the only places, but they are both the best.


"I can firmly say that Political Science (or any other Liberal Art) is NOT a "science" what-so-ever for the simple reason that it is predicated on human behaviour, which is erratic, irrational, and relative to a numerous amount of factors"

Sociology is a science.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I'm not on a "high-horse", I'm just pointing out that if one doesn't have any experience with a field (especially a specific aspect of a field, such as the professionals therein) and starts making assertions about it, such assertions are suspect. I'm not saying his arguments aren't articulate or intelligent, just that I don't find them to be accurate or reflective of political science.



You seem to be pointing out that in order to be considered "experienced" in political science one has to go to university.   I think Brad Sallows is just as capable with 20-years of experience as an Officer and as someone who maintains an interest in the field through reading and critical thought as you are of making assumptions with 1 or 2 years off your parents leash.

Again, I don't remember any "tricks" that one picks up at university with regards to politics - there is nothing there that can't be found at Chapters.



> I agree - the human factor makes things difficult. That doesn't mean that anything associated or focused on human behaviour can't be a science - psychology being the most obvious example. Anything employing the scientific method in its study can be called a "science".



The only parts of psychology that are scientific are the parts that deal with biology (which is a hard science).   Other then that, theories of cognition, behaviour patterns, etc are just like political theory of governance and human affairs - it is based off of "trends" in human behaviour (I wouldn't even equate them to a true Scientific theory like Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, which attempts to deal with universal constants - there are no universal constants with human behaviour)



> Indeed - as I'm sure you'll remember there are no "laws" in political science, with the possible exception of Duverge's Law (after Ryker's reformation of it). That doesn't mean poli sci isn't a science. I can't say for sure since I'm not a psych student but I haven't heard any immutable "laws" of psychology either (again, I could be wrong) but I think it still qualifies as a science.



_sci ·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena_

Since one cannot discern any laws from a liberal art, one cannot really test theories in a closed system, and one cannot discern general truths (only trends), then I can't for the life of me see how you are claiming that Political Science is a "science" considering it doesn't in any form meet up with the definition of the word.

How many "Labs" have you had in your politics class?   There is a reason why Political Science is, along with History, English Literature, Economics, and Sociology, put into the *Liberal Arts* department of a University.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but of the many skills you should be able to take from university (while studying for a BA), a grounding in scientific method and understanding of a hard science is not one of them.   Trust me, I realized this after doing so - this is why we sit here day after day and natter about politics instead of debating how many atoms are in a molecule of X.


----------



## CivU (14 Feb 2005)

"one cannot discern general truths (only trends)"

In this case, gravity is just a trend.  As far as the scientific method, many sociologists follow a Durkhemian "scientific rationalist" or "positivist" epistemology that is entirely based in scientific methodology.  This is used to discover patterns (social facts) in social institutions that are identified with the same methods as any scientific facts.  As far as labs go, in most of the social sciences you have to take a number of courses in qualitative and quantitative research methods in order to qualify for a degree...


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> So you're arguing that you get the same quality of education from reading a book as you do attending a course, with the book(s), and receiving instruction from someone with at least 7+ years in the field?



Is a course the only place to go to read a book, and listen to someone explain something?   I'm doing research on plenty of things right now which involve reading, listening to experts give their opinion, and bringing my thoughts together in a cohesive matter for a paper, none of this is being done in a university.



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> You can learn about the military and military tactics from books, documentaries, open-forum discussions with military experts or leaders, any number of civilian sources. However, this is not the best way to learn about specific military procedures.



This is because military tactics involves actually doing the drills and procedures to gain a fundamental grasp on how it works.   It is a technical subject, like auto-mechanics or an electricians trade.   Drills, exercises, and practice are all part of the field.

I don't see how this can be compared to critically thinking about someone else's literature - which is essentially what studying political science or any other liberal art is.   Where does one get "field time" as a soldier, an apprentice tradesman, or an engineer would?



> You could pick up a book by Nietzsche and read it, but would you gain the same depth of understanding as you would if you had attended lectures, tutorial discussions, read other sources necessary to compile a research paper,and written numerous tests and a final examination on the subject. Undoubtedly, no.



That's making an assumption on what a person needs to do to understand something.

*I've never really studied Military History or Theory at university at all, and yet I'm clearly able to discuss the topics from across the spectrum here on Army.ca.   Is my knowledge and understanding of military affairs now deficient and lacking something because I didn't study "Military Science" at the RMC?*

Seriously, I've never formally studied Military Affairs, and neither have alot of other members here.   I guess this means that none of us really have depth of understanding in what we're discussing here.



> I guess my "complete drek" was once again misinterpreted. I'll reiterate. They may not be the only places, but they are both the best.



Considering the wide availability of books, which - along with an open mind - are the only real requirement to learn about things like this, I'll again disagree with you.



> Sociology is a science.



No it's not.   If it was, you would get a B.Sc.   I studied sociology for a year and I didn't recall deriving any Scientific principles from Weber, Durkheim, or Erving Goffman.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> In this case, gravity is just a trend.



Go somewhere where it exists and try to disprove it.



> As far as the scientific method, many sociologists follow a Durkhemian "scientific rationalist" or "positivist" epistemology that is entirely based in scientific methodology.   This is used to discover patterns (social facts) in social institutions that are identified with the same methods as any scientific facts.   As far as labs go, in most of the social sciences you have to take a number of courses in qualitative and quantitative research methods in order to qualify for a degree...



Well, tell me one Law that can be applied to human behaviour then.


----------



## MissHardie (14 Feb 2005)

CivU,

I'm interested to know the reasoning behind your assertion that 'gravity is just a trend' and not a 'general truth'.  As someone who's sat on both sides of the fence (doing both hard sciences and social), I find that statement very curious, and I don't immediately follow your logic. Care to elucidate?  

Miss Hardie


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

I'm remembering this from my first year Astronomy course, but from what I can recall, for the most part Gravity is a Law - Newtonian Physics works with regards to systems on Earth.

It is when you get to Relativity that Gravity begins to enter Theory.   As of now, we are unable to get things up to speeds approaching light, so it is impossible to certify stuff following Einstein's initial revision of Newtonian Physics as Law.   Much of it is proved in theoretical constructs, but that is about it.

If I'm getting things mixed up, anyone with more knowledge in Physics (Laws and Theory) can correct me - regardless of whether you have a degree or not.

I've yet to run into anything that can predict and explain human behaviour to this extent.   As I've maintained all along, human behaviour is (as of now) such a "Chaotic System" that it can only be reduced to trends - there are always significant exceptions and predictions almost always fail.

Scientific Law successfully predicts phenomena (drop a ball and watch what happens).   Scientific Theory does a good job of doing so, but there are usually spaces and gaps that need to be addressed through more research and development (The speed of light is a tricky thing to observe).   The art of politics, economics, history can do neither of these.   Perhaps CivU and Glorified Ape haven't got to that part of their university studies yet?   ???


----------



## Glorified Ape (14 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As I've maintained all along, human behaviour is (as of now) such a "Chaotic System" that it can only be reduced to trends - there are always significant exceptions and predictions almost always fail.



Really... perhaps you'd like to demonstrate where a majority of presidential plurality electoral systems have failed to produce a 2-party system a la Ryker's reformation of Duverger's Law? Seems that prediction almost never fails. 



> Scientific Law successfully predicts phenomena (drop a ball and watch what happens).   Scientific Theory does a good job of doing so, but there are usually spaces and gaps that need to be addressed through more research and development (The speed of light is a tricky thing to observe).



I suppose Rational Choice Theory and Realism, or even Liberal Institutionalism don't do a good job of predicting and describing things? All use the scientific method. No, they're not perfect but neither are theories in physics, biology, or any other "hard" science. 



> The art of politics, economics, history can do neither of these.   Perhaps CivU and Glorified Ape haven't got to that part of their university studies yet?   ???



One of the first things you learn in poli sci is that there are no laws (as of yet) with one possible exception (see Duverger). Scientific methodology and principle are some of the first things you learn. Perhaps your poli sci training was such that you never learned them and how they're applied in poli sci through the department but that's a shortcoming of your department, not of the field. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> You seem to be pointing out that in order to be considered "experienced" in political science one has to go to university.  I think Brad Sallows is just as capable with 20-years of experience as an Officer and as someone who maintains an interest in the field through reading and critical thought as you are of making assumptions with 1 or 2 years off your parents leash.



1 or 2 years? I'm 24 in March and have been "off the leash" (whatever that means) since about 16. Experience as an officer is irrelevant to an understanding of the field. One can "understand" politics without taking poli sci, of course. But how one can make assertions as to its validity, scientific value, etc. without having ANY experience with the field itself, nor any figures to back up their argument, is beyond me. 



> Again, I don't remember any "tricks" that one picks up at university with regards to politics - there is nothing there that can't be found at Chapters.



Tricks? Where did I say one learns "tricks" unless by that you mean how to employ scientific methodology to examine something. 



> The only parts of psychology that are scientific are the parts that deal with biology (which is a hard science).  Other then that, theories of cognition, behaviour patterns, etc are just like political theory of governance and human affairs - it is based off of "trends" in human behaviour (I wouldn't even equate them to a true Scientific theory like Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, which attempts to deal with universal constants - there are no universal constants with human behaviour)



Only the biological parts are scientific, eh? So psychologists don't employ scientific methodology to glean understanding in any other area? Science isn't about the result, it's about the approach. To say a physicist isn't a scientist because he hasn't discovered any laws is ridiculous. You seem to have this strange understanding of science as something that deals solely with physical phenomena, which is ridiculous. 



> _sci ·ence
> Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
> Function: noun
> : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena_



sci'ence

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a _* : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> *_b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through *scientific method* b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>


Pretty selective and myopic definition of science you have there. Funny how you chose the specific definition you deemed appropriate and ignored all the others. Very scientific of you. 

As it is, your own selection applies as well. Political science employs the scientific method to attempt to extract general laws or truths. Whether it succeeds or not is irrelevant, as long as it stays true to objectivity and methodology. 



> Since one cannot discern any laws from a liberal art, one cannot really test theories in a closed system, and one cannot discern general truths (only trends), then I can't for the life of me see how you are claiming that Political Science is a "science" considering it doesn't in any form meet up with the definition of the word.



Who said one can't discern general truths in political science? Immutable laws, not likely, but it's possible. The fact that "general" is specified means that exceptions are assumed. 



> How many "Labs" have you had in your politics class?  There is a reason why Political Science is, along with History, English Literature, Economics, and Sociology, put into the *Liberal Arts* department of a University.



And psychology is contained in the sciences but according to you, that's inaccurate where anything but biological psychology is concerned.  As for "labs", we did exactly that in Empirical Research Methods (a poli sci course) by running relationships in SPSS. I don't know what your political science program was like, maybe you focused on political philosophy and missed the scientific method courses and classes where it's employed. 



> Sorry to burst your bubble, but of the many skills you should be able to take from university (while studying for a BA), a grounding in scientific method and understanding of a hard science is not one of them.



Wow, how utterly inaccurate. It would seem UBC's poli sci department is severely lacking if that's the impression you gleaned from studying under them.


----------



## MissHardie (14 Feb 2005)

Infanteer,

From what I remember from my astrophysics courses, gravity is one of the four forces which dominate the universe.  This is a Newtonian theory that has been sufficiently proved by both mathematical proofs and experimental observations to be accepted as a fundamental, general law by the science community.  The exception is, of course, general relativity, a general gravitation theory which supplants Newtonian laws (Einstein saw gravity not as a force but as a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime), which is all a theoretical construct for the time being.  Scientists accept this theory because while Newtonian gravitational mechanics neatly calculate particle motions in all but the most extreme gravitational fields or the most extreme distances, general relativity seems to pick up the slack.  </end physics lesson>

Furthermore, I don't recall an instance where either the existence or absence of a gravitational field cannot be explained, which is why I am curious as to how CivU arrived at the conclusion that gravity is not a general truth but a trend.  But then, I've been out of the loop for a while so I may have missed some new developments, or have forgotten some thorny problem that has yet to be solved.  Perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way?

Miss Hardie


----------



## clasper (14 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It is when you get to Relativity that Gravity begins to enter Theory.   As of now, we are unable to get things up to speeds approaching light, so it is impossible to certify stuff following Einstein's initial revision of Newtonian Physics as Law.   Much of it is proved in theoretical constructs, but that is about it.



Actually, when I was in 3rd year, I performed an experiment on the lifetime of cosmic ray muons, which proved the time dilation aspects of particles moving at near light speeds.

The bending of light in gravity fields (which is predicted by General Relativity, and is impossible in Newtonian mechanics), has been proven many times during solar eclipses, as astronomers watch starlight change direction as it passes close to our sun.

There are many other experiments that have been done proving Einstein's theorems, in particle accelerators and in observational astronomy (although the cosmological constant is still kind of thorny).

And speaking as someone with a degree in Engineering Physics, sociology and political studies are NOT science.  Once will enters into the equation, the results are unpredictable, unrepeatable, and unverifiable.  Hari Seldon was fiction.


----------



## Pieman (14 Feb 2005)

> The bending of light in gravity fields (which is predicted by General Relativity, and is impossible in Newtonian mechanics), has been proven many times during solar eclipses, as astronomers watch starlight change direction as it passes close to our sun.
> There are many other experiments that have been done proving Einstein's theorems, in particle accelerators and in observational astronomy (although the cosmological constant is still kind of thorny).



Very true, Einstein was the man. General Relativity (GR) is a very well understood and 'proven' theory of gravity. But that is it, it is a theory. 

I just want to point out that physical theories and 'laws' are not the end all and be all simply because they are proven empirically. Physics is an approximation of reality. The major problem with Newtons gravitational laws, and GR is that the do not explain what gravity is, they predict the results of the interaction of two masses at a distance. Newton says it is a force. Einstein says masses bend spacetime, and that masses will follow geodesic lines. But to date, no one understands what gravity really is.

String theory is the main theory for the replacement for GR, and has been on the building blocks since the 70's. There have been some major break through in the past 10 years, and it is starting to show strong merit. Some development using string theory in quantum gravity have strong implications, which could improve our very shaky 'Big Bang' theory. (One of my undergraduate degrees is in Astrophysics, so I can say this with some authority)



> And speaking as someone with a degree in Engineering Physics, sociology and political studies are NOT science


I never studies political science, so I am not aware of their techniques. However, I note that it was stated here that human behaviour is not predictable, when in reality it can be to a certain degree.

Complex system theory has been gaining ground and abilities to be able to predict behaviours of large scale systems that were otherwise unpredictable. Complex systems have been applied to a large variety of applications, such as predicting traffic flows through a city, a flight path of a flock of birds, to complex fluid dynamics. 

For those who don't know what complex system theory is, it was founded by a guy named John Nash (from the movie 'A beautiful mind') and he came with a way to solve problems that simply had no rule, law, or mathematical construct that could be applied to them.   Something I am very thankful for as I make my living on the ideas he came up with.

In general, it is found that all complex systems, whether it be a colony of ants, a traffic system, a group of apes, magnetic properties of a material,   or even a large society of humans, all follow rules of entropy, that fluctuate with degrees of stabilization and disorder. These can all be predicted in a stochastic sense (prediction in probability terms), not measured like a physical object.

So in essence, what I am getting at is that Political science and sociology are not without proven scientific tools that can test their theories. I don't know if Poli-science people are using Complex system simulations to test out their ideas on large societies, but that day is coming. There are groups who are taking these mathematical contrusts and appling them to small sections of society and predicting human behaviour (Helping to design a recreation park for example) to a good degree of success.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

I've seen a few writings on attempting to use "Chaos Theory" or try to formulate "Ethical Calculus" and what not - essentially trying to find hard and fast rules to human behaviour.  Interesting, and from what I can google on Chaos Theory, trying to find underlying order in such madness should be interesting.

My perception is that all it takes is one human being to figure out what's going on and to act in a matter that will screw the equation up - atoms can't really do this, but people can; kind of like those people that purposely offer up erratic answers to a survey to skew the statistical method up (I know this cause I've done it a couple times for fun when they've phoned my house....).


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2005)

Most of these side arguments actually prove my point: there is a strong current in acedemia which makes assertations, yet discounts or ignores the evidence!

The "social sciences" are not science by definition because you cannot make hard predictions based on the information developed in them. Only History and Economics can come close: they are "descriptive sciences", since you can use them to analize events after the fact, and can make general predictions (trends). Trying to use history and economics to make exact predictions (tomorrows stock market prices; when the Liberal minorety will fall) will be only "SWAG"s (Scientific Wild Assesd Guesses).

The example back there about some theory stating presidential elections only results in two parties is false on the face of it, in the United States there are two major parties and a constellation of minor parties (In the last election there was a US Green Party, Ralph Nader as an Independent candidate, a US Reform Party, an American Socialist party....). All these parties made attempts to get on the ballot, most were unable to get enough grass roots support to get on the national ballot (Nader was ruthlessly suppressed by Democratic Party operatives who even went to court to prevent him getting on the ballot and drawing votes away from Senator Kerry). *Like I have said over and over, in a REAL scientific dicipline, once a hypothesis is proved false, it is discarded from consideration.* No one seriously disputes laws of hard Physics, since they are based on universal observations which can be exactly replicated across time and space.


----------



## CivU (14 Feb 2005)

"Science isn't about the result, it's about the approach. To say a physicist isn't a scientist because he hasn't discovered any laws is ridiculous. 
You seem to have this strange understanding of science as something that deals solely with physical phenomena, which is ridiculous." 

Glorified Ape is correct.  Studies done in Socilogy, Political Studies, Policy Studies, Human Geography etc. all follow the scientific method.  They factor in variables related to the subjects in question (in this case human beings) no different than any other object of scientific inquiry.

As far as having studied Sociology for a year and never having heard of Durkheim's "Scientific Rationalism."  This does not bode well for your school's faculty.  One of the first things covered in Sociology at the 100 level is its basis in science, a neccessary step in establishing the scientific methods you learn in greater depth at later stages.  

As far as gravity being a trend and not a general truth, I used this as an example of how you discredited the Social Sciences despite their scientific approach to academic.  If one finds that 99.9% of the time any object falls toward the earth when dropped from above, and that 99.9% of the time a persons education corresponds to their level of income, both of which are found using scientific approaches, then how can one be a trend while one remains a fact?


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Feb 2005)

>So you're arguing that you get the same quality of education from reading a book as you do attending a course, with the book(s), and receiving instruction from someone with at least 7+ years in the field?

I would suppose it depends on the subject, the instructor, the student, and the book.  I certainly proved to my satisfaction in several courses that I could learn math, physics, or programming languages and concepts easily enough despite the intervention of the occasional unintelligible instructor/professor.

clasper has nicely encapsulated the essence of science.

There was a good one-line summary on Jerry Pournelle's site today: "If you can't mail it in a letter to a colleague so that he gets the same result you do, it isn't science."

One of his (Jerry's) old essays, for anyone interested:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/voodoo.html


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> "Science isn't about the result, it's about the approach. To say a physicist isn't a scientist because he hasn't discovered any laws is ridiculous.
> You seem to have this strange understanding of science as something that deals solely with physical phenomena, which is ridiculous."



The* approach * is the *scientific method*. Science is the result when the method is consistently applied and the phenomena can be consistently studied. "Social science" may attempt to use the scientific method, but is notoriously inconsistent with the application, refusing to discard hypothesis when empirical observation demonstrates no cause and effect correlations. In physics, Aristotle could claim that greater masses will fall to earth more quickly, but as soon as this was demonstrated to be false, it was no longer considered a valid way of describing the universe. The current rants against US foreign policy are easily disproven (the invading for cheap oil is my personal favorite), yet this is brought up over and over even now. On other threads, it has been pointed out that low taxes and limited regulation *TEND* to support economic growth, yet there are still posters who will advocate more taxation, regulation and government spending, despite the empirical evidence from many nations and at many different times. (Note I say *TEND*, _since economics describes my assertion, but cannot predict how much economic growth would result from lowering taxes by amount "x"_). As Infanteer and others have pointed out, human reactions are never consistent, the same input may tend to give similar outputs, but there is no 1:1 correlation.



> As far as gravity being a trend and not a general truth, I used this as an example of how you discredited the Social Sciences despite their scientific approach to academic.   If one finds that 99.9% of the time any object falls toward the earth when dropped from above, and that 99.9% of the time a persons education corresponds to their level of income, both of which are found using scientific approaches, then how can one be a trend while one remains a fact?



Gravity can be studied and applied throughout the universe (making observable predictions back almost to T=0, the "Big Bang" when the ffundamentalforces of the universe were one), while trends such as income/education are correlations which only show close correlation in the last two centuries or so in Western civilizations. Prior to that, social standing, skill at trade or skill at arms were far more useful in making predictions as to who* might * have a higher income. Hence I will repeat that the ability to make ttestableand repeatable observations and predictions at ALL times and ALL places qualifies something to be a science, and if you can't do it, then it isn't science.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

:boring:

This is stupid - arguing with you two is like arguing with a rock.

On the original issue of the Universities and being an "expert and learning", you've yet to answer my question:

*"I've never really studied Military History or Theory at university at all, and yet I'm clearly able to discuss the topics from across the spectrum here on Army.ca.   Is my knowledge and understanding of military affairs now deficient and lacking something because I didn't study "Military Science" at the RMC?"*

Please answer it, because I am really concerned that I do not have a firm grasp on military topics because I am _"unable to achieve the same level of understanding"_ due to my lack of a University degree on the subject matter.   I'm sure other amateurs would like to know as well and hopefully get someone with tenure on here to tell us about Clausewitz and Van Crevald.   Make sure you tell that amateur A Majoor as well, since he has been published in a professional journal on multiple occasions.

In other words, your implication seems to be an ignorant dig towards those who have not excercised the oppurtunity to study politics at a University.

With regards to "Science", so far all you guys have done is to peg the entire foundation of your idea that Liberal Arts are "science" based on Duverger's Law.   If using a law that looks at an extreme limited (in both time and space) part of the human experience satisfies your requirements of a Science, then fill your boots.   CivU's attempt to denigrate my education by pointing out that I missed out on the Durkheim bus is no better, because what I took from sociology was that Durkheim is simply another interpretation of how to observe trends in human behaviour - if I'm wrong, take "Scientific Rationalism" and find me an immutable law of human behaviour.   I'll be waiting on that one.

Despite the fact that most people who have B.A.'s and B.Sc. or no degree at all, young and old, experienced in life or not, seem to think you guys are full of smoke, you don't really want to hear it.   That's fine, if you wish to keep the cotton in your ears then that's your prerogative.   There is no point to try and reach the Unassailable Heights of your 2 or 3 years in university (although many of us have been there and have moved on).   In fact, I'm going to recommend to Mike Bobbitt that he make a "CivU and Glorified Ape" forum just for you guys, since all it appears is that all you guys are here to do is to listen to eachother talk.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Feb 2005)

Some things can be learned from books without interacting with a single other person (eg. math, physics) and some can not (eg. section attack).  Provided you have the raw intellect, mastering most of the body of work of a science or sciences is easy.  Mastering an art is not.


----------



## CivU (14 Feb 2005)

Listening to eachother talk?  That sounds strangely like the Army.ca clique of which you Infanteer are the self-appointed ringmaster.

As far as, "Is my knowledge and understanding of military affairs now deficient and lacking something because I didn't study "Military Science" at the RMC?"

In response to this, yes.  If you had studied Military Science or whatever programs are offered in this realm of academia, I guarantee you would have gained insights that were not accessible in self study and self reflection.  The influence of a professor and your peers can have a profound impact on what you gather from a course.  This is not attainable in the recesses of your public library huddled alone among a mass of books.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> Listening to eachother talk? That sounds strangely like the Army.ca clique of which you Infanteer are the self-appointed ringmaster.



I don't think I care much for your tone. You would be careful not to be so presumptuous. For a person that never strays outside the Political thread and has nothing else to offer the greater site, you've got no place to talk about a clique.


----------



## CivU (15 Feb 2005)

"For a person that never strays outside the Political thread and has nothing else to offer the greater site"

I post outside of the Political thread; however, my CF experience is limited and I do not post on topics for which I cannot inform someone based on experience.  Check your facts...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Feb 2005)

As I say. Rather presumptuous. And I still don't like your tone. However that's just my opinion, but I can take solace in the fact I'm far from alone in this.


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Feb 2005)

> I do not post on topics for which I cannot inform someone based on experience.  Check your facts...



So what is your experience (as opposed to education)  in regards to what you've been posting in this section?


Regarding facts - 94 of 131 posts have been in politics or current affairs. I think recceguy was speaking in a general sense, rather than a literal one....   This clique member is far more impressed with a Corporal's (high school graduate) analysis of his personal weapon's performance  in Afghanistan, than your flowery ramblings regarding political theory. At the end of the day, he (or she) has made a difference in the world - you have not. In my opinion, of course...


----------



## clasper (15 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> As far as, "Is my knowledge and understanding of military affairs now deficient and lacking something because I didn't study "Military Science" at the RMC?"
> 
> In response to this, yes.   If you had studied Military Science or whatever programs are offered in this realm of academia, I guarantee you would have gained insights that were not accessible in self study and self reflection.   The influence of a professor and your peers can have a profound impact on what you gather from a course.   This is not attainable in the recesses of your public library huddled alone among a mass of books.



You are quite right that the influence of a professor and peers can have a profound impact on your learning.  If you think that studying new material after your degree occurs alone in the recesses of a public library, then you need to get out more.  In a professional environment, you are constantly surrounded by peers, and you are all trying to learn.  There are rarely "professor" types, but there is a much greater cross section of experienced and non-experienced people (as well as a greater cross section of religious, cultural, and political thought than is found on campus, in my experience), leading to a very informative learning environment, that doesn't involve a single classroom.

In many ways, learning is actually easier once you get out of the hallowed (and rigid) halls of academia.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> Listening to eachother talk?   That sounds strangely like the Army.ca clique of which you Infanteer are the self-appointed ringmaster.



If I was a "ringmaster", you'd be long gone by now.   I'm merely a member here who helps the owner mind the house.

The people you are so hasty to constantly criticize as a "clique" are actually a collection of members of the Forces who are familiar with one another and enjoy coming here to share their experiences.   There are members of the so-called "clique" of varied rank with 20-30 years of Time-In, multiple operational tours, and a wide variety of both civilian and military experience.   If associating with them requires the use of a internet medium, then so be it.   I appreciate the fact that they take time out of their lives to come here and post their thoughts and I value what they have to say, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

You, on the other hand, seem to look down on most of the other members here (the so called "clique") and their experiences and don't really enjoy talking with anyone.   Rather then play the "Grey-Man", you dismiss the comments and advice of SNCO's who joined the Army before you were born as if they were some uneducated sap.   I really am confused about your motives for spending time here as you seem to have no care for making any professional inroads with the wide array of experience on this site.   There are certainly other places on the internet that would be more suited to your goals (whatever they may be), so why are you here?     



> As far as, "Is my knowledge and understanding of military affairs now deficient and lacking something because I didn't study "Military Science" at the RMC?"
> 
> In response to this, yes.   If you had studied Military Science or whatever programs are offered in this realm of academia, I guarantee you would have gained insights that were not accessible in self study and self reflection.   The influence of a professor and your peers can have a profound impact on what you gather from a course.   This is not attainable in the recesses of your public library huddled alone among a mass of books.



Whew, thanks for that.   I needed someone to tell me that I'm nothing but a two-bit amateur here.

Well, I guess that's your opinion - although I'm unsure of where you've got the basis to make that assumption.   Against your proclamation, through here and other means, I've put my thoughts and writing up for review by both my professional peers and my seniors (both SNCO's and Officers) who've had far more experience and training then I have (Staff College, War Studies, etc) and the feedback they've given is a little different from denigrating what I've got to say and write as _"lacking the profound impact of formal class work and simply postulating from a public library huddled alone among masses of books."_

As well, others without the benefit of "the profound impact of formal classwork", guys like A Majoor, can offer frequent contributions to professional peer-reviewed military journals (such as The Army Journal).   Too bad their thoughts and works, that the Army felt fit to print, were lacking in depth because they never had Clausewitz, _Aufstragstactik_, or Lutzen explained to them in a classroom.

Obviously, you can see that I'm not crushed by your answer (actually, it was par for the course).   But keep it up, because if your general tone and manner of relating with your fellow troops is in any way reflected in your attitudes here, then it will take you far in the Army as a Leader of Soldiers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Feb 2005)

CivU you to can be in the clique.  The only requirement is that you have more "time in" then my combat t-shirt.


----------



## CivU (15 Feb 2005)

I respect the informed opinions of military experience on this board; however, when it comes to politics, I do not think that age or real world experience are a necessity for a depth of understanding.  A 20 year old can be more read and learned than a 40 year old anyday...

As far as experiencing "a greater cross section of religious, cultural, and political thought than is found on campus, in my experience"

I guess it depends on where you go to school.  In my experience, despite a high level of income, the diversity on my University campus is significant, especially in comparison to small town background...

And I'll pass on the offer of the clique, but I'm flattered nonetheless...


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2005)

Fragging in Vietnam is an interesting paper that I as a young 2Lt on Armour Phase Crse a long, long time ago kept and filed away as it was required reading for us.   Perhaps our brilliant RMC cadets should read it and discuss it.   Canadian soldiers used this practice in both World Wars with a lot more finesse.
Perhaps, once again, it should become required reading for officer candidates.

GW


----------



## garb811 (15 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> In response to this, yes.   If you had studied Military Science or whatever programs are offered in this realm of academia, I guarantee you would have gained insights that were not accessible in self study and self reflection.   The influence of a professor and your peers can have a profound impact on what you gather from a course.   This is not attainable in the recesses of your public library huddled alone among a mass of books.



Which is precisely why no self-respecting university would ever allow a student to take a course, let alone earn a degree, via correspondence!   Oh...wait a minute...scratch that, I'm in the process of doing just that.   Maybe there's going to be a little â Å“BA (Distance)â ? or something on my degree so they'll be able to tell that I didn't really understand or gain any insight into what I studied do you think? 

Ok, sorry for the intrusion, back the regularly scheduled bun fight.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2005)

> I respect the informed opinions of military experience on this board; however, when it comes to politics, I do not think that age or real world experience are a necessity for a depth of understanding.   A 20 year old can be more read and learned than a 40 year old anyday...



Once again, your logic escapes me.   Let us use you as an example:   If you were 40, would you still apply this statement to yourself?   When you are 40 will you apply this same statement to yourself?   I would imagine that by the time you are 40, you will have realized the stupidity of that statement.



> As far as experiencing "a greater cross section of religious, cultural, and political thought than is found on campus, in my experience"
> 
> I guess it depends on where you go to school.   In my experience, despite a high level of income, the diversity on my University campus is significant, especially in comparison to small town background...



Again, this proves what a small little world you have lived in, and the limited education and experience you have received.   Once you take your blinders off in the next phase of your life, you will again realize some of the fallacies of your comments.

GW


----------



## CivU (15 Feb 2005)

Are you going to support these statements and suggest why a campus cannot be diverse or why a 20 year old can be more learned than a 40 year old?  Or are we to assume, as is the norm, that because you are the elder, your knowledge is infinite and I should just sit beneath the old oak for a daily sermon...


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2005)

Actually I am arguing the opposite: why does a young 20 year old think he knows more than a 40 year old?.......but you haven't experienced that yet, so as of yet it is a mote point.

And on your "Or are we to assume, as is the norm, that because you are the elder, your knowledge is infinite and I should just sit beneath the old oak for a daily sermon..." comment; I am lead to ask who your teachers have been?   Who are all those "old" men you are so keen on quoting?

GW


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> "For a person that never strays outside the Political thread and has nothing else to offer the greater site"
> 
> I post outside of the Political thread; however, my CF experience is limited and I do not post on topics for which I cannot inform someone based on experience.   Check your facts...



"Check your facts?" - Remind me again how many times board members have had to correct your absurd claims of world history re: the United States in the last 3 months?   

5 times?
10 times?

I would have thought that would've tempered your attitude but apparently your commitment to your deductive reasoning model has once again allowed you to miss an opportunity to gain wisdom from an experience.

It's a pity, because based on your writing you've obviously got a brain.   

In all seriousness, one day you'll look back on who you are today, and realize how little you really knew.   The key is to try to keep learning every day so that tomorrow you're a better man than you were today.

Best wishes,



Matthew.


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Feb 2005)

I guess Plato called it right...



> In that, I said, the father accustoms himself to become like his child and fears his sons, while the son likens himself to his father, and feels neither shame nor fear in front of his parents, so he may be free ; the metic becomes the equal of a citizen and the citizen of a metic, and similarly with the foreigner.
> It indeed so happens, he said.
> To these, said I, such trifles do add up: the teacher, in such a case, fears his pupils and fawns upon them, while pupils have in low esteem their teachers as well as their overseers; and, overall, the young copy the elders and contend hotly with them in words and in deeds, while the elders, lowering themselves to the level of the young, sate themselves with pleasantries and wit, mimicking the young in order not to look unpleasant and despotic.


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> :boring:
> 
> This is stupid - arguing with you two is like arguing with a rock.
> 
> ...



Not at all - I don't doubt that it's possible to glean an equal degree of knowledge on a certain topic, such as politics, from personal study as it is from attending lectures. This assumes, of course, that your professors do little more than regurgitate the readings in which case you should probably switch schools. Is there an equivalency of education insofar as one gleans the same understanding of the intricacies of the field, the methodology and practicalities peculiar to the field and the environment of study within the field at the university level? I don't think one can make credible assertions as to the validity of the academia surrounding political science without having been immersed in it. I also think there's something gained from having to repeatedly improve one's understanding by having to apply the methodology, theories, etc. and have such application picked apart by professionals but I could be wrong. I don't think this makes one a professional, but I think it's essential. The equivalent would be me claiming that I know the dynamics and reality of military life because I've read every book on the subject. I may be able to make accurate assertions as to the structure and normative issues but can I really know the military without having ever been in it? That being said, if an ex-soldier told you the military was an unprofessional, undisciplined bunch of hack wannabes, would you agree - having been in and his assertions being nowhere near similar to your experience and knowledge?

That being said, I don't automatically dismiss someone's assertions as untrue simply because they don't have a degree in something. On the other side, I don't necessarily credit someone's assertions as being true simply because they DO have a degree. If someone's arguing contrary to what I believe the evidence shows, I'm not going to accept their opinion as true (or truer than my own) unless they can prove to me otherwise, which I don't believe has happened of yet. It surely happened in the gun control thread and I admitted it, though after an admittedly unnecessarily stubborn and lengthy resistance.



> With regards to "Science", so far all you guys have done is to peg the entire foundation of your idea that Liberal Arts are "science" based on Duverger's Law.   If using a law that looks at an extreme limited (in both time and space) part of the human experience satisfies your requirements of a Science, then fill your boots.   CivU's attempt to denigrate my education by pointing out that I missed out on the Durkheim bus is no better, because what I took from sociology was that Durkheim is simply another interpretation of how to observe trends in human behaviour - if I'm wrong, take "Scientific Rationalism" and find me an immutable law of human behaviour.   I'll be waiting on that one.



Liberal Arts encompass quite a range of subjects. I make no assertions as to the validity of any field's academics and their work besides my own. As for Duverger's Law being specific, so what? I'm not even claiming Duverger's Law as law - it may be and it may not be. I see it more on par with evolution - extremely descriptive and seemingly extremely predictive but still short of being an absolute "law" since it's entirely within the realm of possibility that it will fall flat on its face tomorrow, though it's highly unlikely. Are we going to argue that Evolutionary Biology isn't a science, though?



> Despite the fact that most people who have B.A.'s and B.Sc. or no degree at all, young and old, experienced in life or not, seem to think you guys are full of smoke, you don't really want to hear it.   That's fine, if you wish to keep the cotton in your ears then that's your prerogative.   There is no point to try and reach the Unassailable Heights of your 2 or 3 years in university (although many of us have been there and have moved on).   In fact, I'm going to recommend to Mike Bobbitt that he make a "CivU and Glorified Ape" forum just for you guys, since all it appears is that all you guys are here to do is to listen to eachother talk.



A person with a BSc is about as qualified to comment on the validity of political science as a field by virtue of their having a degree as I am to comment on Music because I have a BA. While a BA in political science (which you have) lends some credibility to comment on the academia of that specific field, I don't find your observations accurate based on my experience (subjective), what I've learned, or your evidence. It seems we're arguing more about the definition of science than the actual application of its methodology (or lack thereof) by political science so both our degrees are irrelevant except where specific discussion of academic political science is concerned, in which we disagree because we can't agree on a definition of science. I believe methodology defines it while you believe it's result-driven. 

I respect the opinions of majoor, Brad, yourself and everyone else on the topic though that doesn't mean we have to agree. If my participation in political discussion on the board really annoys the people here that much, I'll forego participation. This is really the only board area in which I'm qualified (as just about anyone is, given the nature of the subject) to actually debate, which is why I post in this area so much. I'd post elsewhere on the board more often but since I'm limited by my small amount of military experience and knowledge to generally seeking either advice or asking questions (most of which have already been answered before), the majority of my posting is here. That being said, I'll bite my tongue in the politics arena if I'm really pissing people off that much with my opinions - I didn't start this board and I wasn't invited so it's up to the moderators, of which you're one. 



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> The* approach * is the *scientific method*. Science is the result when the method is consistently applied and the phenomena can be consistently studied. "Social science" may attempt to use the scientific method, but is notoriously inconsistent with the application, refusing to discard hypothesis when empirical observation demonstrates no cause and effect correlations. In physics, Aristotle could claim that greater masses will fall to earth more quickly, but as soon as this was demonstrated to be false, it was no longer considered a valid way of describing the universe. The current rants against US foreign policy are easily disproven (the invading for cheap oil is my personal favorite), yet this is brought up over and over even now. On other threads, it has been pointed out that low taxes and limited regulation *TEND* to support economic growth, yet there are still posters who will advocate more taxation, regulation and government spending, despite the empirical evidence from many nations and at many different times. (Note I say *TEND*, _since economics describes my assertion, but cannot predict how much economic growth would result from lowering taxes by amount "x"_). As Infanteer and others have pointed out, human reactions are never consistent, the same input may tend to give similar outputs, but there is no 1:1 correlation.



In bivariate relationships, no - that's pretty rare. Of course, so is perfect causality in a bivariate relationship in human affairs (or most others, as far as I know). The difficulty lies in discovering and factoring all the variables. 



> Hence I will repeat that the ability to make ttestableand repeatable observations and predictions at ALL times and ALL places qualifies something to be a science, and if you can't do it, then it isn't science.



Really? Biology can't test everything, nor make repeated predictions at all times and at all places but it's a science isn't it? I'll reiterate: the result is not what defines a science, the methodology and approach do. 

A biologist testing hypothesis after hypothesis in an attempt to explain a phenomenon, yet proving his explanations wrong every time, is still a scientist because he applies the method, obtains the result, and admits that his hypothesis was wrong, right, or some degree thereof. If he starts ignoring evidence, betraying the method, and asserting relationships as fact which are not clearly so, then he ceases to be a scientist. No credible political scientist will assert that a theory is undeniable fact. He may assert that it describes and predicts a phenomenon better than another theory and thus is of more value but he won't claim, for example, that Realism is so absolutely factual that it's on par with conservation of mass or anywhere close thereto.


----------



## CivU (15 Feb 2005)

"I am lead to ask who your teachers have been?  Who are all those "old" men you are so keen on quoting?"

I've had 50 year old secondary school teachers who knew nothing and 30 year old professors who seemed to know everything.  I've also had elder teachers who taught me a great deal and younger instructors who seemed to lack the intangibles.  Age is irrelevant when it comes to knowledge.  Why can a young person not know more than their elder?

As for absurd claims regarding the United States in the last three months, I'm not sure what such claims are...enlighten me.

I'm more than willing to accept Glorified Ape's position and bow out of forums if the fact that two persons who can articulate an opinion that differs from that of the primary posters are unwelcome.  If that is the case I guess there isnt a lot of discussion desired on this discussion board...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Feb 2005)

See ya 

OK, that's not really fair. Excuse me for jumping at your offer.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Not at all



Fair enough, I think we both agree that knowledge is something that can be attacked from many different directions and perspectives; we seem to be content on disagreeing on the relative weight that one would assign formal attendance to a campus, which is fine.  I am going to tell you what I took from my undergrad years that I feel is the most important thing a university can provide (and hence where my weighting of the undergrad process comes from).  If you choose not to agree, fine - come back when you're done and point out where I'm wrong.  

University should give one the ability to come away from something regardless of the medium, whether it be a lecture (in a classroom or not), reading a book (assigned or not), or writing one's thoughts down (assigned or not).  If I can credit anything to my Paper on the Wall, it is that any attempt to learn something new (which happens everyday) is definitely much more "focussed" than, as Clasper pointed out, while I was within the rigid confines of prescribed syllabi at University or a freshly-minted Highschool grad.  I did not (and do not), as CivU asserts, need to go and undertake a Military Studies program to gain an appreciation for the topic, although my undergrad experience has helped to "hone in" on what I seek to know.



> The equivalent would be me claiming that I know the dynamics and reality of military life because I've read every book on the subject. I may be able to make accurate assertions as to the structure and normative issues but can I really know the military without having ever been in it?



I'm not seeing how spending a few years on in formalized coursework is any better then informal studies and discussions.   Expert is a relative term - it seems that many consider Ward Churchill to be an "expert".  Immersion in "Political thought and governance", like any other social field, is gained through day-to-day experience (which can be augmented if one can reflect on a body of knowledge that one has formally or informally stored through learning). 

This is why I'm willing to give those who've experienced much more then I have through their own eyes the credit for that.

Cheers,
Infanteer

[edited the spelling typos to assuage the critics]


----------



## Infanteer (15 Feb 2005)

Intelligere said:
			
		

> Too many people are either writing above my head or talking through their hats.   I have no idea why Infanteer was "within the rigid bounds of proscribed syllibi", unless he meant PRESCRIBED SYLLABI.



That's what happens when you don't bother to read over what you post.  When I need a professional editor, I'll know who to call....


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Fair enough, I think we both agree that knowledge is something that can be attacked from many different directions and perspectives; we seem to be content on disagreeing on the relative weight that one would assign formal attendence to a campus, which is fine.   I am going to tell you what I took from my undergrad years that I feel is the most imporatant thing a university can provide (and hence where my weighting of the undergrad process comes from).   If you choose not to agree, fine - come back when you're done and point out where I'm wrong.
> 
> I'm not seeing how spending a few years on in formalized coursework is any better then informal studies and discussions.    Expert is a relative term - it seems that many consider Ward Churchill to be an "expert".   Immersion in "Political thought and governance", like any other social field, is gained through day-to-day experience (which can be augmented if one can reflect on a body of knowledge that one has formally or informally stored through learning).
> 
> This is why I'm willing to give those who've experienced much more then I have through their own eyes the credit for that.



I agree with your assertions that one can gain equivalent quantity of knowledge in an area without going to university (although it may take longer, given the concentration during a degree), my main objection was that one can't gain an equal familiarity with the academia of the field. I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm sure anyone with a reasonable degree of intelligence and reading could hold up a discussion about a particular theory, etc. equally with someone with a degree. Where I think the degree is essential is in the learning of the specific methodology (with all its related concerns peculiar to the field) to that knowledge, not only by instruction but through application (and the scrutinization thereof). 



> University should give one the ability to come away from something regardless of the medium, whether it be a lecture (in a classroom or not), reading a book (assigned or not), or writing one's thoughts down (assigned or not).   If I can credit anything to my Paper on the Wall, it is that any attempt to learn something new (which happens everyday) is definately much more "focussed" than, as Clasper pointed out, while I was within the rigid confines of proscribed sylibbi at University or a freshly-minted Highschool grad.   I did not (and do not), as CivU asserts, need to go and undertake a Military Studies program to gain an appreciation for the topic, although my undergrad experience has helped to "hone in" on what I seek to know.



I don't necessarily disagree. Really, my main point of contention was the characterization of poli sci academia as unprofessionally biased and unscientific. I think you're correct in your identification of "thinking skills" as one of the more important things gained from university. I don't expect to retain half of what I remember now 10 years down the road but the attitudes towards knowledge and thinking will hopefully still be around.


----------



## pbi (16 Feb 2005)

> I do not think that age or real world experience are a necessity for a depth of understanding.



I speak from the position of having defended (on other threads) the right and the desireability of the newer and younger members to challenge the older and more experienced among us, as long as it is done within the bounds of decency and not as strident mindless ranting. I do not come from the school of "_children should be seen and not heard_".

However, I have difficulty with this statement:



> I do not think that age or real world experience are a necessity for a depth of understanding.



I think that this sentiment has led to ruination, bad ideas and unhappiness in all walks of life, not least the military. I am reminded of the stupid young 2Lt who arrogantly says " _Shut up WO: I'm in charge_!", or the various harebrained schemes hatched by the Govt from time to time. I found that my own university education (which was PoliSci and Psych-_nyaah nyahh   _ > ) was immensely enriched and much better situated because of the life experience and maturity I brought to it at age 44 with years of military service all over the world. 

Surely you don't really mean what you wrote?

Cheers


----------



## CivU (16 Feb 2005)

"I do not think that age or real world experience are a necessity for a depth of understanding"

This was referring to the realm of political debate, where depth of understanding comes not from age but in the form of lectures, readings, tutorials, scholarly work and open debates. I think your interpretation took my comment out of context.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Feb 2005)

Quote,
This was referring to the realm of political debate, where depth of understanding comes not from age but in the form of lectures, readings, tutorials, scholarly work and open debates.

....can't stop laughing....please stooooooop, hehehe....yar killin' me....get real, lad!!!!!


----------



## George Wallace (16 Feb 2005)

I know Bruce, like standing in the desert with heat stroke arguing with the rocks.     :

I wonder what colour the sky really is in that world?

This has become my morning _____   ;D _____.   Back to my coffee.

GW


----------



## Highland Lad (16 Feb 2005)

As I read the thread, I am reminded of the oh-so-true comment:

     When I returned from University, I was amazed at how much more intelligent and reasonable my father was.

Lectures, lessons, and books are wonderful places to concentrate facts. Life is a wonderful place to gather wisdom. Put the two together, and you will should gain understanding. One without the other is useless.

I will freely admit to having been a PITA on my recruit course, due to having been in cadets, read all sorts of books about Vietnam, WWII, Korea, mercenaries, etc (fiction and fact). I could tell you all about Monty's victory at Alamein, and how the Colonial Rebellion in the Americas could have been won if the government of the day had been willing to provide the army with what was needed and requested (hmm... more parallels to history?). I thought my instructors would LOVE me!!! Looking back on it, I'm lucky that one Sgt took me under his wing and threatened to break my neck if I didn't get my yapper under control. I'm also very lucky that one course-mate provided a very clear example of how to ensure your career self-destructs (before I could do the same).

SUM UP! Don't discount the knowledge gained through experience OR through someone else's teachings - Those of us who have greater experience need to work to ensure that those who have knowledge gain the experience to properly apply it, and those of us who have less experience need to work to learn from those who have the experience.


----------



## CivU (16 Feb 2005)

"I wonder what colour the sky really is in that world?"

I hope with all the knowledge and experience I will have gleemed by middle age I will not be so hasty and ignorant of other opinions.  One can only hope...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Feb 2005)

I hope with all the knowledge and experience I will have gleemed by middle age I will not be so hasty and ignorant of other opinions.  

....no, you have managed it already, just wait untill you're a grown-up, maybe you will get it...one can only hope...


----------



## George Wallace (16 Feb 2005)

Highland Lad

Very good post.  Very succinct and summarizes the situation very accurately.  I doubt that this can actually be described in a book or lecture, as the experience of actually seeing "The Wall".  You can hear all the stories, but until you actually go and see it, it doesn't truly sink into the ole melon.  In a way it is too bad it is gone.

GW


----------



## Infanteer (16 Feb 2005)

Seeing how CivU doesn't seem to want to accept the advice of those with more age, professional experience, or formal education, we can forget trying to further this conversation along anymore.

Locked.


----------

