What is Science? What is Political Science?

Attending college, I was a Political Science major living in an apartment with 5 other guys 2 of which were chemistry majors, one math and two studied computer science; as you might imagine, I was regularly chided for having such an "easy" field of study. I was told it was silly that "Political Science" was even called a "science" at all, because, according to my roommates at least, the field was a made up one; it was a study of illusion, subjectivity and ignorance, not of identifiable fact.

Whether Political Science is indeed a science is a difficult question to answer and first we must define our terms. "Science" as an idea is seemingly so standard, so regular and ordinary that its mysticism has nearly left us; we give little thought to the nature of science as the epistemological inclinations within us fall prey to study's regularity. Superficially, it seems that modern science has become a definitional concrete as methodological unity surpasses specialization.

In a practical sense, most believe "scientific" research should embody a methodological plan for study: the Scientific Method. As most are familiar from at the very least high school chemistry, the Scientific Method is a sequence of events used for research. One must observe their subject matter and formulate a testable hypothesis, then perform experiments on that hypothesis to determine its validity. In scientific study, most are careful to never say that "the results prove this or that" instead, results only "reject the null hypothesis" and thereby suggest that in this case the hypothesis stood up to testing. Of course, if a hypothesis stands up to enough tests, by enough scientists, it may become a "theory" or perhaps even a "law", which is a learned way of pointing a finger and saying "this… this here is true".

Science has become a phenomenon so easily associated with the natural world because nature has such blatant regularity; it certainly does seem to be the case that even if we mock the sun and hurt its feelings, it will still rise. So then research in the natural sciences has the advantage of proven reliability. To so many, in a practical sense, this is the only true "science"; science must only explain phenomenon that already exists, science is our attempt to understand a preexisting world.

So what is social science? Researchers in Political Science and Sociology use the exact same methods as those in Chemistry and Biology, but something seems different. The difference is of course that social scientists can have an affect on their subject matter; a paper finding an increasing acceptance of homosexuality may incite more conservative Americans to stand stronger against that idea. The subject matter of social research is inherently dynamic and therefore perhaps less reliable than natural scientific research.

Still, Political Science is indeed a "science". In order to receive that label, the field employs methodological research following nearly the exact same sequences that are used in natural research. The true fundamental difference between the natural and the social seems to be in interpretation. Most believe that natural science is in essence finding truth, while social science looks for trends and percentages. The end result of this is simply that while all research is scientifically identical, the human concept of it is not.

Humans are socially conscious beings; we see and understand within different frameworks of thought. Thomas Kuhn developed the idea of the paradigm as a lens through which all study is done and therefore put forth the idea that all research reflects what is already believed until such a time that a great change forces a breakthrough resulting in a paradigm shift. The classic example of this is that prior to Copernicus and Galileo most research supported the idea that either the sun revolved around the earth or perhaps that all other bodies revolved around the sun, which in turn revolved around the earth; this was the paradigm of thought and research solidified that framework. Following Galileo a paradigm shift occurred wherein the entire mentality changed and research then began to support the heliocentric claim.

When any research is conducted it naturally begins with human bias, this comes in the form of funding, hypothesis development and interpretation, and even the scientific method reflects how the western culture has decided research can be validated. The importance here is that all research, may it be natural or social reflects certain aspects of our opinion and culture.

Political Science does differ from the natural science, but this is mostly in the form of labeling. It is true that the subject matter for social research is dynamic, and this will likely remain a great difficulty, but that does not make this type of research any less acceptable than natural studies. Natural science simply has the advantage of presumed-truth; most people will see a study in chemistry, physics or biology and take it as factually true, while they will much more easily question social research. This is in truth not a bad situation; doubt diversifies knowledge and encourages further study.

In conclusion, Political Science is a science, it employs scientific methods and its findings are repeatedly tested for their validity. It is a biased field, as are all and it is always important to never assume any study is free from bias. As most are not fully educated in epistemological theory, it falls to the researcher to diligently strive for objectivity while remembering that it is never truly possible.
-Mike Ryckman