"not in the scientific community..."
Imo you need to take a step back and not be so passionate.
Politics isn't science; never was and never will be. Politics *thrive* on ambiguity whereas science does its level best to overcome ambiguity. Where necessary it does so by setting boundaries. "Political science" is an oxymoron. "Economics" tries to sell itself as a science of money. It's actually the politics of money. That's what made the old joke funny:
If you laid seven world leaders of economic theory end to end, they'd point in seven different directions ... eight if one of them is from Harvard.
Certain things are very much part of our daily life: politics, religion, music, relationships etc. These things are currently not amenable to scientific treatment, except in the most limited and descriptive way. Thus sociology discusses in limited statistical terms a series of perhaps informative trends, but it's just a nibbling 'round the edges of an essentially indigestible article.
I personally balk at the "softer" sciences. I've never met a pair of psychologists, for example, who were on any firmer ground, mutual or otherwise, than, oh, economists. It is imo a noxious fossil from the Century of Progress that the myth persists that all will one day yield to science. The day it does, my world begins to collapse. Imagine there being a science of wisdom and beauty. This bleak prospect frightened some of the literary giants of the 20th century. Orwell and Huxley sort of leap to mind.
cheers js |
