“Is political science a science?” It has been a subject of debate among prominent thinkers and scholars. There are various views on it and, you will get both the positive and negative aspects of it. So, let’s discuss on it.
On one side of the spectrum, thinkers like Buckle, Comte, and Maitland firmly rejected the notion of politics being classified as a science. Maitland, in particular, expressed his skepticism, stating, “When I see a good set of examination questions headed by the words Political Science, I regret not the questions but the title.”
In contrast, Aristotle held a different perspective, describing politics as the “master science.” He applied scientific methodologies in his study of the political dynamics within the Greek “City-States.” Aristotle’s approach paved the way for a lineage of distinguished thinkers such as Bodin, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Sidgwick, Bluntschli, Bryce, and others, who followed suit.
More recently, figures like George Catlin, Harold Lasswell, and Karl Deutsch, among many other political scientists, have argued that the complexities of the contemporary political landscape demand the development of political science as a rigorous and systematic field of study. Now, let’s learn the different aspects of whether political science a science.
Also, read:
Political Science Vs Public Administration
Negative View: Is Political Science a Science?
Is political science a science? This question has been debated for quite some time, and various arguments have been put forth to argue against its classification as a science. Let’s delve into some of these arguments:
- Complexity of Material: One key argument against political science being a science is the complexity of its subject matter. Political science deals with human behavior and society, which are inherently diverse and constantly evolving. Unlike the relatively simpler and more consistent subjects of natural sciences, human behavior and society exhibit significant variations.
- Absence of Natural Laws: Another contention is that political phenomena do not follow “natural laws” in the same way that physical sciences do. In the natural sciences, there are often clear cause-and-effect relationships governed by immutable laws of nature. In contrast, political events are influenced by a multitude of factors, making it challenging to establish universally applicable laws.
- Difficulty Applying Scientific Method: Applying the scientific method, involving systematic investigation and experimentation, can be challenging in the realm of political science. Human behavior is not always predictable or easily replicable, which makes it difficult to conduct controlled experiments or gather conclusive data.
- Limited Predictive Power: Unlike some natural sciences that can make accurate predictions based on established laws, political science struggles to predict future political developments with precision. The complexities of human decision-making and societal dynamics make accurate predictions a formidable task.
- Divergence of Expert Opinions: Experts in political science often hold differing opinions about its methods, principles, and conclusions. This lack of consensus among experts can raise questions about the field’s scientific rigor and objectivity.
- Lack of Objectivity: Lastly, critics argue that political science can lack objectivity. The subjectivity of political viewpoints and biases can influence research findings and interpretations, potentially undermining the discipline’s claim to scientific objectivity.
In essence, the debate is whether political science a science revolves around the challenges posed by the complex and ever-changing nature of its subject matter, the absence of natural laws, the difficulty in applying the scientific method, limited predictive capabilities, differing expert opinions, and concerns regarding objectivity. Whether one ultimately classifies political science as a science or not, it remains a vital field of study for understanding and navigating the intricacies of human society and governance.
Lack of Precision
Is political science a science? This question has long been a topic of debate, and to explore it, we must examine the nature of political phenomena and the methods of investigation applied in this field.
First and foremost, it’s important to acknowledge that political phenomena do not adhere to natural laws in the same way that physical sciences do. Unlike principles like Archimedes’ Law of Gravitation or the Theory of Relativity, the principles of political science are more relative and shifting. Laws in the physical sciences have universal applicability; statements like “water flows downward” hold true across countries and centuries. In contrast, political science deals with the wide spectrum of human behavior, which changes with time and place. Therefore, the generalizations we can make about political behavior are inherently limited, leading to differing interpretations of concepts such as democracy, liberty, and equality.
One of the key challenges in treating political science as a science lies in the non-applicability of traditional scientific methods of investigation and experimentation. While chemists can conduct experiments with carefully controlled conditions, political scientists cannot manipulate human societies and behaviors in the same way. The unpredictability of human willpower, the influence of external factors, and the ever-changing nature of social and political life make artificial experimentation impractical.
In physics and chemistry, experiments can be replicated until a definitive result is obtained, but in politics, this is nearly impossible because conditions can never be precisely replicated. Social and political situations are in a constant state of flux due to the interactions of various social forces. Political scientists lack the power to control or create these forces, making it challenging to conduct repeatable experiments. As the saying goes, “No man can jump into the same river twice. Both the man and the river change.” Social experiments are further complicated by the presence of subjective elements.
In summary, the question of whether political science a science is a complex one. The nature of political phenomena, the limitations of applying traditional scientific methods, and the inherent variability of human behavior all contribute to the unique challenges faced by political scientists. While political science may not conform to the same principles as the natural sciences, it remains a valuable field of study for understanding and navigating the intricate dynamics of human societies and governance.
Lack of Predictability
This question of whether political science a science has long been a subject of debate among scholars and thinkers. To shed light on this topic, we’ll explore some key aspects that highlight the unique nature of political science when compared to the natural sciences.
Lack of Predictability: One fundamental difference lies in the predictability of outcomes. In the natural sciences, the relationship between cause and effect often follows clear and predictable patterns. Scientists can confidently forecast specific effects based on typical causes. However, in the realm of politics, this predictability is elusive. Political phenomena do not conform to natural laws, making it challenging for political scientists to accurately predict future developments. A single cause can give rise to an array of unpredictable consequences. For example, Karl Marx’s anticipation of a socialist revolution in an industrialized nation like Great Britain was overturned by the historical reality of the 1917 revolution in Russia, a relatively backward country.
Disagreement about Methods and Principles: Unlike the natural sciences, which possess universally accepted methods, political science lacks a unified approach. Various methods and approaches have been employed over time to study political phenomena, resulting in a lack of consensus. Furthermore, principles and theories within political science do not enjoy widespread agreement. Debates persist over the scope of state activity, the nature of the state itself, concepts like liberty, equality, and rights, as well as ideologies such as democracy, socialism, individualism, nationalism, and internationalism. These concepts are subject to diverse interpretations, further complicating the definition of political science.
Lack of Objectivity: Objectivity is a hallmark of the natural sciences, where researchers aim to conduct their work in a detached and unbiased manner, avoiding value judgments. In contrast, political science inherently includes an “ideal dimension.” This means that subjective elements are ever-present in the study of political phenomena. Political science entails an analytical examination of what the state is, a historical exploration of its past, and an ethical discourse about what it “ought to be.” Unlike the natural sciences, which maintain a value-neutral stance and focus solely on describing how things are, political science grapples with normative questions about how things should be.
In conclusion, the question of whether political science a science is complex and multifaceted. While it shares certain characteristics with the natural sciences, such as the use of empirical data and systematic analysis, its inherent unpredictability, methodological diversity, and the presence of subjective elements distinguish it. Whether one views political science as a science or not often hinges on the perspective and criteria applied. Political science remains a dynamic and evolving field, shaped by the ever-changing landscape of politics, making it a captivating area of study regardless of its classification as a science.
Is Political Science a Science? The Positive View?
In the eyes of Bodin, Montesquieu, Bluntschli, Bryce, Seeley, Burgess, and other modern scholars, there is a resounding affirmation that those who hesitate to grant political science the status of a true science simply fail to grasp its genuine essence. So, let’s delve into the heart of the matter: What is science, after all? At its core, science is a systematic body of knowledge. When we apply this definition to the realm of politics, we find that political science is, in essence, organized knowledge about political phenomena. This knowledge is acquired through systematic observation, experience, or dedicated study of the facts, which are then meticulously coordinated and classified.
Much like the scientific method used in the study of physical sciences, the process of making political science a legitimate science involves three distinct stages. First, you collect and classify the necessary facts. Second, you arrange these facts into causal sequences, thereby arming yourself with a profound understanding of your subject matter. Finally, in the third stage, you use this acquired knowledge to establish fundamental principles or laws. This scientific method isn’t exclusive to the physical sciences; it is equally applicable to the study of political phenomena.
A political science student can gather and classify a vast array of historical facts and contemporary data pertaining to the functioning of political institutions. An exploration of these phenomena will unveil a discernible order, regularity, and interconnectedness in their sequences. This, in turn, equips the investigator with knowledge about specific political phenomena. Building upon this knowledge, the investigator can deduce general principles and laws governing the evolution of political life. It’s worth noting that modern political scientists firmly believe that the political phenomena they observe exhibit enough recurrence and similarity to warrant the formulation of law-like statements. While these principles and laws may not be as immutable as those in the physical sciences, they can be applied to tackle real-world political challenges. For instance, consider the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the Constitution of India. This very principle underscores the scientific nature of political science.
Critics of this perspective concede that laboratory experiments, as seen in the physical sciences, are not feasible in the realm of political science. However, they aptly point out that political scientists do have a kind of laboratory at their disposal – the external world of political life. Governments are perpetually conducting experiments on their societies, altering the course of state affairs. Each new law, institution, or policy can be seen as either a conscious or an unconscious experiment. While humans and societies can’t be subjected to artificial experimentation, students of political science can effectively employ an experimental method, in a figurative sense, when studying political phenomena.
In conclusion, the question of whether political science qualifies as a true science receives a compelling answer from proponents of this view. They argue that the rigorous methodology applied in the study of political phenomena, the establishment of principles and laws, and the practical application of these insights to real-world problems firmly position political science within the realm of science. So, in response to the question, “Is political science a science?” the consensus among these scholars is a resounding “yes.”
Also, learn:
Final Words on Whether ‘Is Political Science a Science?
The question of whether political science can truly be considered a science is one that has sparked considerable debate. While political scientists may not don lab coats, peer through microscopes, or wield test tubes, there is a reasonable argument to be made in favor of regarding it as a science.
As the scholar Gettell suggests, if we define science as a body of knowledge acquired through systematic observation, experience, and study, and then organized into a unified whole, political science fits this description. It involves a rigorous process of observation, data collection, and analysis, much like traditional sciences.
However, it’s important to acknowledge that political science cannot achieve the same level of precision as physics, chemistry, or mechanics. There are inherent differences between the physical and social phenomena it seeks to understand. The laws and generalizations in political science cannot be as exact due to the complexity and variability of human behavior.
Moreover, political science often deals with an “ideal dimension” in its subject matter, which adds another layer of complexity. This ideal dimension involves exploring normative concepts and values, which are inherently subjective and less amenable to precise measurement.
Therefore, it becomes clear that the answer to whether political science is a science cannot be a simple “yes” or “no.” Instead, it should be assessed in terms of degree. Political science is indeed a social science, but it operates within the realm of imperfect knowledge, as do other social sciences. It is a progressive field, continuously evolving and striving to better understand the intricacies of human politics.
In this regard, some liken it to a “science of aesthetics,” recognizing its role in examining the beauty and value of political systems. Others liken it to a “science of morals,” acknowledging its role in evaluating the ethical dimensions of political decisions. Ultimately, political science is an inexact science, similar to meteorology, where predictions are subject to a degree of uncertainty. Yet, it remains a valuable and essential field for studying and navigating the complexities of our social and political world.