Talk:Political science/Archive 1

message: mike what i suggested is that you integrate your ideas into the contextualist history, not that you just replace everything with your ideas.  Some of your additions will never be acceptable for me because they have no relationship to anything other than one school of thought, and the default position is that they don't get posted unless there is consensus.  i'm not saying that your work does not add to what many of us have done with this entry, contrarily, i would like to see some of it included, but what you did today was not 'cool'.  here we work together, yes?   so let's try this again.  I've reverted back to the prior version after discussing with the wikipedia channel.  --Buridan 21:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: one final point for the day- it is by no means all my work, my submissions were improved upon, and I took many good points from the original page and included them. Bye for now, you can change the page back if you want- I really don't think the issue is dead when that is done. Ta--Mikerussell 22:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, I agree, reprinted something from below. I just think the Discussion page should be the place where the reasons for the changes are made. to not address the counterpoints- in whatever fashion you see fit, and then to simply change the oage places one in no other position than to wonder what the heck is going on. I do believe the reverts and overwrighting serve as a history of the conflict that even furthers the Wikipedia format in some sense. In effect, this little battle has created a point-counter-point history that a curious reader can read and see how views diverge. The bickering, however, serve no purpose. I definitely have better things to do for a while. I hope the history of the pages is not deleted by admin--Mikerussell 22:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not exhibited a sufficent awareness of other ideas in your remarks made on this page, to let you mislead readers. Before you try to exert the power of doctorates, why not reason. Another point, don't make all these little edits, I have no choice but to revert to ones very far back. Please try to edit offline, then enter your final submission at one time. Thanks--Mikerussell 22:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  comparably, i think that i did reason. i edit as i edit, i never locked the page for editing, or anything like that.  i just edit as i go.  the discussion page is to work things out.  as you will note, i never said my doctorate did anything, i said i teach this and i know it.  --Buridan 23:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading your edit to date, I think you have better represented my points, at least a broader, if somewhat flaccid, account of p.s development is evident. I will keep checking back when I get the chance.--Mikerussell 00:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: integrating vs overwriting

message: Well, first we have to clean this up.... .  I'm going to work on it little by little.  bringing in materials abstracted from several histories of the discipline, including Ricci, Farr, Ross etc., but it will take time.  eventually we should have something comparable to the sociology or psychology articles.  --Buridan 19:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you have improved the article by inserting the notion that it should resemble other disciplines. This shows some misunderstanding about what Pol Sci is, its history, origin and current practice. The above message What are our priorities for writing in this area?  To help develop a list of the most basic topics in political science, please see political science basic topics. referred to an earlier article, which has been improved upon. I think my own beginning was further improved by User:209.166.28.66 on Jan 9th. What possible reason could you have for thinking Political Science should resemble sociology and psychology articles? The word (Political Science) is not the thing (Political Science). It is just false to suggest that in the 19th century Political Science suddenly emerged. It began in Greece. It began as a distinct entity from Politics and Political Philosophy in the life and works of Socrates, Plato and Aristtotle. With all due respect, what sources do you have to suggest such a shallow view as to ascribe its foundations to the 1860s? Just because sociology and psychology were founded in European countries in that period,  so what? They are not the same thing at all. The suggestion that bringing in materials abstracted from several histories of the discipline, including Ricci, Farr, Ross etc will add to the article is, with all do respect, almost comical. It is equivalent in logic, as suggesting the History article will be improved by what Political Scientists think of the discipline. Does that make sense to you? There are many biases which the historical perspective has which will adulterate, if not mutilate, any assessment of Political Science.--Mikerussell 05:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resembling other Disciplines? 

message: Well, it is also the case that plato wasn't doing political science, nor what aristotle.  in fact, the notion of a science doesn't arise until much later in history, so what were they doing?  they were doing philosophy, and if you want to put your material in political philosophy that is fine.  don't get me wrong.  there is space for history, but the history that was provided is not the history of political science, and is not even good history, it is opinion and decidedly western and biased toward what i tend to think of as the 'great tradition', which is fine, but it isn't political science.    Political Science is a social science, it has a history, and that is documented, but it isn't documented here, what you have here is not political science, and if this article aspires to be anything, it should be about political science, not about political philosophy.    your priorities in the area are now being disputed. --Buridan 17:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we have a very different set of priorities here- I completely agree with you on that point. I think you have absorbed a kind of unexamined view of what constitutes science, a type of rationality that really is self-ironical. To suggest that Plato was not doing political science, is no more logical than to say Thales was not doing science. The type of political science which you assume represents the phenomena is only possible because of the prior political science; the original or founding act. To relegate the origin to 'history' and granting 'there is space for history' is shallow and superficial, if not an outright misunderstanding.  --Mikerussell 07:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato wasn't doing political science? Huh? 

message: Apparently you have no interest or reverence for this founding act as exhibited in your inaccurate and lazily-lumped mish-mash of names (Homer..Euripides)To stand at this point in time, and to look back with such a narrow conception is nothing more than an academic conceit. In my opinion, it regards political science as a kind of imitation of modern physical science, which in fact severs Platonic political science from comprehension. To be so misinformed about the origin of something, and yet free to use it as a subordinate of 'social science', represents an irreversible narrowing of the topic. May I ask you, who invented social science? What makes social science possible? --Mikerussell 07:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: every person that i mention, i have taught in my political theory classes.  they all dealt with politics, i tried to include your bit about abstraction and analysis in context.  you can rewrite that of course, but there is no platonic political science.   in fact, plato calls the study of politics it an art or craft in the statesman  --Buridan 14:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes,   that is a straussian interpretation of the history, but just an interpretation, note that my version of article does not take any specific interpretation of the history as truth, i just provide the facts and evidence.  --Buridan 21:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: the article should represent political science, the history section should represent the contextual or intellectual history.  my interest here is to provide a solid, normal, wikipedia article that people can use.  it won't be unnecessarily broad, and it won't be too narrow.  it will be about political science, it will be clear, and it will be neutral to the topic. it will be something that you can take to a political scientist and she'll say ok, or it's a start.  it won't be something where they say 'no, that's not political science', which was where the prior article was.  --Buridan 14:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are the expert in that regard? You know the mind of every political scientist? Wow, you are bettter than me.--Mikerussell 19:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i think that i have feel for it.  you might think that you do too, but ask yourself, is what you keep substituting what you would find in an encyclopedia  article, is it that sort of knowledge?  if you can honestly say yes, then I give up. i just wanted to get the article to be solid and useful to students and people interested in actually knowing what political science is, and i don't think giving one position in the debate is appropriate, i think we need to take the neutral position, and that is what i've tried to do, be neutral, use facts and evidence. --Buridan 21:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who invented [[social science]] 

message: Take a look at Heidegger's essay The Question Concerning Technology; I cannot help myself but take a very pertinent passage from it, where he discusses the decapitation of science by modern science, when they treat nature as 'a coherence of forces calculable in advance'. Hence physics  [modern physical science]...will never be able to renounce this one thing: that nature reports itself in some way or other that is identifiable through calculation and that it remains orderable as a system of information. (Heidegger, the Question Concerning Technology, p.21, harper edition, 1977). This is why, in my opinion, you have decided to call everything beyond your definition of p.s. as 'philosophy' or 'political philosophy'. Which is another grotesque inaccuracy of the activity. 
Political philosophy is not exclusively known, or defined, as the philsophical study of political life. In fact, there is another definition, surely Platonic in origin, that defines political philosophy as the political treatment of philosophy. This definition is manifest in the Republic of Plato. The simple fact that this definition is possible, and can be rationally argued, undermines you entire relegation of p.s. to something subsumed by 'social science'.    --Mikerussell 07:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: cite it with the stephanous number, and i'll see if i can give you a better translation from the greek.  and also note that what plato thinks of political philosophy should go in political philosophy  --Buridan 14:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: actually that passage isn't about philosophy is about rhetoric or 'the craft of disputation', your interpretation may vary. --Buridan 21:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed, it does. One might even argue it is the very heart of the entire dialogue, the 'wave' that turns Socrates free of the grip of the Athenian 'gentleman mob'. the philosophy is not in the text- it is in the reader, I think your interpretation looses sight of the dramatic context of the dialogue.--Mikerussell 17:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephanous numbers 

message: in regards to your 'word is not the thing' argument.  i will say that evidence is evidence.  there was no such thing as political science until the movement to scientize moral philosophy, political economy, and history occured.  this is just a matter of fact, it is not a matter of debate.  to assert that plato is doing political science anachronistic and shows a complete misunderstanding of his work and project.  likewise with the enlightenment philosophers, they were doing what they thought was natural philosophy or moral philosophy, and not pursuing anything 'scientific', natural science and the ideas of science, were not for humans at the time.   so 'the word is not the thing'  but truth is better than fiction.   as for your other positions, most are non-starters in my opinion and one is a non-sequitur 
I'll revise my introduction and reapply it, and be extending and revising as i go.  we can debate the relative merits further when we actually have an article that deals with something that might be called political science --Buridan 17:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon my insolence, but what the heck does scientize mean? And how do you know what the enlightenment philosophers were doing? Isn't that the exact same thing you are cslling me out for with Plato? Your facts are just values, I'm afraid. You need to revisit the fact/value distinction. You are labouring under a confusion about what constitutes 'facts' and what constitutes a 'value'. This makes me wonder whether you are the one with a completely misguided understanding of Plato's 'work and project'. I think I just might have a more complete understanding of his work and project because I can at least present more than one conception of it. To this very moment, people are still working to understand Plato's work and project. It is not a dead letter, as your comment implies. The above comment is just so much hooey. I disagree with you strongly. You actually think Machiavelli was doing natural or moral philosphy? natural science and the ideas of science, were not for humans at the time. Huh? Next thing you'll suggest is that nobody wrote anything until the printing press was invented. I will attempt to repair, naturally, you can rebut.--Mikerussell 07:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: here, you are wrong, especially with your fact value fetish. as for machiavelli, his work does many things.  as for a conception of his work, i've taught machiavelli, 7 times now, my peers seem to think i'm solid in that area...   i don't know why.    --Buridan 14:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Word is not the thing' argument 

message: The definition was hopelessly sophomoric and said nothing about why poli sci was not simply economics or church social organizing.  So I mentioned violence - the primary thing that poli sci is supposed to be containing... and the thing that makes it different from quantitative tradeoffs.  I don't recall exactly where the "stupid rule of thumb" came from, but it's clearly on the mark.  Decision science becomes political science at the moment you lose an eye, or anything else irreplaceable that you'd rather have than any amount of cash...
:I shuffled things around and added a bit about game theory.   The intro paragraph always bugged me, and the new prose that others added today seemed a much better start.
:It still needs more work, though.  I agree that the prevention of violence still needs to be explained and integrated further, which is where I started going with game theory.  The idea behind good government is to change the rules of the game such that violence doesn't pay. -- RobLa
::not quite:  it is to *balance* the rules of the game so that violence that protects or amuses those the society views as "productive" or "useful" is enabled and justified e.g. by police, and violence that advances free riders at their expense is pre-empted, unrewarded, or reduced to tolerable levels.  Specific theories of political economy "change the rules of the game such that violence doesn't pay."  It's differences on *how* to do that that generate the different theories of political economy.  The broader idea of political "science" is more like theories of mass human behavior...
::also, violence for amusement (throwing Christians to lions, death penalty, bombing people who aren't actually the specific ones who will hijack planes to pilot into your tallest buildings, killing all Arafat's aides without killing *him*, etc.) is a sign that political *science* has failed and political *habit* (i.e. looking good for your tribe's females, "killing the bad people", "saving the world" by advancing your own "moral code", etc.) is taking over.
::violence is absolutely central to politics and any definition that doesn't refer to bodily harm as the difference between political science and say sociology is problematic...
:::A significant proportion of political scientists would violently object to the suggestion that their discipline is merely applied game theory, and even the game theorists would almost all agree that game theory is a tool for analysis, not the discipline itself, so I've reworded accordingly.--Polonius 04:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject area of Pol Sci?  Violence? Game Theory? 

message: I reverted a recent edit, which I felt drastically overemphasizedthe importance of ancient greeks, as well as the "mastery of nature", and other theories (such as labour value). I think the ancient greeks get more than enough emphasis already, and while I think mention of locke and hume would be acceptable, it would been to be more balanced.  12:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add info on locke, hobbes, and others in due time, i think we can do justice to the history by making short histories of each era/area.  i've only briefly laid out some of the areas that i'll fill in by providing links, but i'll probably add others.  there is a distinctively western/great tradition bias, and including confuscian political theory, and middle eastern political theory in the history would certainly diversify and broaden the article because they still have broad influence in political science around the world today.  --Buridan 15:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: in regards to the old oligarch, he was a poet/historian that existed at a key time in athenian history and provides evidence of the social transition from aristocracy to democracy.  he was against the solonian laws that democratized athens and worth noting, but I'll have to write that article up before it is included, i guess. :)  --Buridan 15:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient greeks, mastery of nature 

message: this area will need more work of course.  people that deserve mention here are john of salisbury, st. thomas, and marcilus of padua.    that will take it to machiavelli and the italian renaissance.  --Buridan 18:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman - medieval=

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: the tag was inflicting the overall appearance of the article, so i move the tag here. rebutte me if you want. cheers, --zachjones4 03:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of worldwide view tag