Why fight it? Because it is important.

[CivU]

"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]

As usual, you've completely missed the point.

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]

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]

>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. 

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.

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.

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 phenomona.

Scientific Theory (The Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory) are again based on observation of phenonmena, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

  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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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?