Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier
I think it's time for you to read some Plato. Especially the bits where he deals with sophism.
|
I've read some Plato and Aristotle already, they have their own veiws on everything.
Quote:
This is very much true, but there are very real facts re: the wastefulness of the suburban form, particularly on land, water, and energy resources and the fact that we will need to curb this waste in the very near future.
|
Of course there are real facts, but none (or no collection) is strong enough to tip the scales to one side, crushing the other. If that were the case we would not be here having a debate on this topic. You know, there is plenty negative you could say about cities too. That they generate increased pollution, are more dangerous, more expensive, louder, dirtier, are unhealthy in general...
Right, but something out there still pulls everything to the ground. It doesn’t matter what you call it, it could be gravity, it could be our brain. We're not talking about the mechanics behind gravity, we're talking about whether the action really exists or not. (And yes, the Onion News is a leading expert in intelligent thought...)
Quote:
P.S. What you're spouting is why its dangerous to have political scientists who have never studied epistemology running around. The point of political science, as I see it, is to transcend the blind dogmatism of ideology; just dumbly following it does a discredit to you and political scientists everywhere.
|
I've actually taken two philosophy courses so far (one specifically on philosophy of the environment, actually), and how I see it...every philosopher (or thinker) has their own way of tackling an issue. I think the perception is that you’re going to learn something in studying philosophy from an expert, which you can take with you for the rest of your life. Although I'm not sure that's the case, when many of the arguments philosophers make conflict with each other from one person to the next. To me that says there is no one right or wrong way to confront an issue. Studying people like Plato and Aristotle is important, but they also lived in a very different time from where we are today.
Now I admit that there are some corners of politics here in the US where ideology takes hold, creating a mass upheaval over something which really is not there. Politicians abuse the system, or do at some point in their career. I know it's a problem. Then again, I'm the one taking the more middle of the road approach here, you are the ones calling the suburbs a blight on society with diminished evidence to support that. Who's taking the ideological approach here?
Quote:
P.P.S. Political science isn't a true "science". Not even a social science. History is more scientific than political science. It's a social study with "science" tacked onto the end of it because people think scientists are sexy. This is drawn from the definition of science given in Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations, so it's dangerous to try and disagree with it, too.
|
I believe it is a science, studying politics. Political science in general works around a framework, just like every other science does out there. It does have rules and a background. How can you honestly say social science is more relevant than political science? Political science is a science, it's just not as book laden as other sciences out there. Politics are ever changing and evolving, yet to be successful at politics you still have to do your homework. You can’t just walk right into it and expect to come out on top. I consider myself a political scientist, politics are what I love.