Is politics a science?
''Our choice of research topics will inevitably reflect our own political and moral priorities, and the way in which that research is framed and conducted is bound to reflect assumptions which – whether held consciously, semi-consciously or unconsciously – remain of a moral and political nature. Additionally, striving for "policy relevance" can result in the production of research that conforms to the priorities of power.''
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/08/political-science-moral-ethical

I absolutely agree. Politics is a subjective subject. Nothing wrong in that, but give me Media Studies any day at least it makes no false claims of objectivity stolen from scientific methodology.
A prime example is a clown who desperately tries to base a statistical procedure based on a normal distribution to a non-Gaussian one, in an effort to get a result which suits his preconceived ideas.

engineering a software system is not much different from chemical engineering than civil engineering is. it just was historically in the engineering faculty because it used to be all theoretical. so designing a circuitboard is engineering, but writing code that does the exact same thing in firmware is not? what if you write code that compiles to a circuitboard, and printout that circuitboard? computer engineering or "computer science"?

How am I smearing them? It's only smearing if you have some kind of inflated view of critically problematizing everything, which you continue insist you don't have.

" who we know is good at analyzing those things he chooses to analyze"

No we don't know that, you continue to *stipulate* that a good engineer is necessarily good at "analysis", and someone who can recite biological information as well as an engineer can recite physical parameters he uses for engineering is somehow not as analytical.

You're just trying to concoct a straw man hypothetical and you're failing miserably at doing so.

"Our choice of research topics will inevitably reflect our own political and moral priorities, and the way in which that research is framed and conducted is bound to reflect assumptions which – whether held consciously, semi-consciously or unconsciously – remain of a moral and political nature. Additionally, striving for "policy relevance" can result in the production of research that conforms to the priorities of power.''"

The same applies for every science. Treating problems as amoral and objective reflects certain values also. You should know that, since you make it a habit of attacking scientists for their supposed normative biases.

I ask again, what bullshit field do you study?

@Putin,

Actually, you're wrong. I never said I didn't value critical thinking (definition one). I just said it wasn't the same as intelligence. I actually think it's a very good trait to have.

And, um, OK.... yes, I'll be happy to stipulate that a good engineer is good at analytical thinking. OH, LOOK EVERYBODY, COME MOCK ME for thinking that a good engineer should be good at analytical thinking.

Look, I'm going to have to leave it here: you've embraced an absurd position* and any neutral reader of the thread will see that it's absurd; and you've retreated to calling my argument fallacious instead of trying to defend your absurd position.

*The position, for those new to the thread: Let A and B be two people. A believes in evolution, and B does not. Neither one has given substantial thought to his belief or disbelief in evolution, instead just accepting it on authority (say their respective high school teachers). B is a successful engineer. We know nothing of A. However, A should be considered more intelligent than B because of this unreflective belief.

Is Fulham going to go through and slander every single social science in existence? I'm waiting for his attacks on sociology and anthropology. How about psychology? We know he doesn't like biology either so that's probably not a science.

It's not *belief*. Here is where your whole straw man falls apart. It is no more "belief" than the Pythagorean theorem is a "belief" or the physical laws that engineers deal with is a "belief". Your loaded scenario has an anti-evolutionary bias.

first page someone mentioned private prisons and immigration. just like to add that the controversial bill (I belive SB10) in AZ on immigration was written by the prison industrial complex. literally.

"Look, I'm going to have to leave it here: you've embraced an absurd position* and any neutral reader of the thread will see that it's absurd; and you've retreated to calling my argument fallacious instead of trying to defend your absurd position."

Yeah it is fallacious to concoct absurd, skewed hypotheticals and then declare victory when somebody else doesn't buy into your assumptions.

@Putin - Software engineer is a job title. Computer science is a field of study. I guarantee your typical CompSci graduate can *not* do the job of a software engineer. It's just like electrical engineer and electronics. Just because you study electronis or mechanics doesn't make you an electrical engineer. Only a academic would confuse a field of study with a professional title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineer

Even the federal government recognizes software engineering and software engineers.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos303.htm

So epic fucking fail for the attempt to insult not only engineers but then to place software engineers as some bastard step-child of other forms of engineering. You really are an abrisive and stupid fuck, aren't you...

Um, Putin, that's absurd.

Subjectively, with respect to a particular person, everything is belief. Let's take the Pythagorean theorem since you bring it up. I believe in the Pythagorean theorem. Let's say A doesn't. I'm perfectly happy to say that his belief is a belief, and my belief is a belief.

Now, my belief happens to be true, and in my case justified, so it also counts as knowledge, but it is certainly -- among other things -- a belief. To refuse to use that word about something just because it is known to be true is an utterly ridiculous and completely indefensible position.

I believe in the Pythagorean theorem. I have incredibly strong reasons for doing so.

A in my earlier example believes in evolution. He does not have strong reasons for doing so (EVEN THOUGH STRONG REASONS MAY EXIST).

Let's see if you can follow the following example.

John is young and very ignorant. He is walking through the woods one day when he meets a man wearing a strange cloak and carrying an odd sack. The man tells him that he is an oracle and a wizard, and that he can tell John the truth about anything. John asks, "Is the pythagorean theorem true?" The man says, "Yes it is."

So, John now believes the Pythagorean theorem. _But he believes it for terrible reasons._ Just because WE happen to know for GOOD reasons that it is true, we are not going to use some word other than "belief" to describe his cognitive attitude toward it. We will not even call it knowledge, in this case, because his belief is entirely without good justification.

This is all very elementary philosophy, and also, for that matter, very elementary English language. None of it is controversial.

ha there hasn't been a good war-of-the disciplines on here in a while.

@smeck unfortunately it seems to me that many believe in evolution for no other good reason than they see it as an alternative to religion; I call them ''evolutionists'' and their belief system ''evolutionism''.
They tend to know little about the proposed mechanism and if you press them about how genetic mutation can explain and constrain all of the attributes they give to the paradigm their ignorance is astounding. The great evolutionary biologist Richard Lewinton was very good on this, I recomend him. Here is a book review he wrote which clearly puts forward his ideas:
http://www.sciy.org/2010/05/16/what-darwin-got-wrong-by-jerry-fodor-and-massimo-piattelli-palmarini-review-by-richard-c-lewinton/

So it's not knowledge unless every person who learns the theorem can understand the proofs for why it is true? Really? Is 2+2 = 4 not knowledge unless people can understand the complex proofs that undergird the axioms which are necessary to arrive at 2+2 equalling 4?

How about the soldier who while not having an engineering degree nor not necessarily knowing the theory behind how planes work, nonetheless possesses the "knowledge" of how to repair combat planes? That's not knowledge, that's just belief because he didn't "analyze" it? Whatever.



All this simply because you want to provide excuses for why supposedly intelligent people can convince themselves of really stupid things?

"They tend to know little about the proposed mechanism and if you press them about how genetic mutation can explain and constrain all of the attributes they give to the paradigm their ignorance is astounding."

No, rather nobody is considered intelligent unless they ascribe to your theistic superstition, and everybody who is an atheist and an evolutionist is called religious because you know very well that your superstition is based on absolutely nothing empirical or scientific so you're trying to level the playing field by attacking science for being "religious".

And of course you cite Lewonton, the creationist's favorite pet biologist. Anybody who is anti-Dawkins and anti-Darwin is automatically hailed as brilliant.

@putin, wow. You are putting on a clinic in bad reasoning.

No. I did not say it's not knowledge unless every person who believes it can understand the proof. But it's not knowledge _for a particular person_ if he believes something for bad reasons. So, in my example above, we can't say "John knows the Pythagorean theorem is true."

The soldier you speak of does have knowledge of how to repair engines. I never either said or implied that you need an exhaustive understanding of something to know it.

In our particular case, each of our people believes something because they were taught it in high school. In general, most of what you're taught in high school is true, so you're somewhat justified in believing it. That said, one of the people in our hypothetical is wrong.

The point is, neither one has expended any intellectual energy in coming to their belief on evolution, so you just can't actually judge anything about their analytical abilities -- a very major component of intelligence -- by their belief on evolution.

"All this simply because you want to provide excuses for why supposedly intelligent people can convince themselves of really stupid things?"

Well, it's certain that highly intelligent people can and do convince themselves of stupid things all the time.

In every single one of your last 5 posts or so, you have misconstrued what I am trying to say and implied that I said things I did not. Please don't do it again.

@fulhamish, interesting link, thank you.

Nobody has a "good reason" for believing 2+2 = 4, they just accept it as true because it is, because according to you is not 'knowledge'.

But please, go ahead and declare victory for the upteenth time while moving the goal posts and insisting I'm miscontruing your argument. That never gets old.

*But according to you it is not knowledge.

What do you have to hide, Fulham? You're a supposed expert on proper scientific practice but you're too cowardly to reveal your own discipline and be held accountable for your constant smears?

"Nobody has a "good reason" for believing 2+2 = 4, they just accept it as true because it is, because according to you is not 'knowledge'."

Hmm. So is your claim that evolutionary biology and the pythagorean theorem are elementary, basic, obvious, axiomatic truths like 2+2 = 4?

Incidentally, as I already mentioned before, the definition of knowledge as "justified true belief" is not something I just made up. It goes back thousands of years, and any theory of knowledge uses something more or less equivalent (though the level of complication varies). As I say, nothing I've been saying about knowledge is controversial. Only somebody who spent most of his time reading the lower-end new atheist blogs could come to have such a problem with the word "believe" that he refused to use it except pejoratively.

"But please, go ahead and declare victory...."

Yeah I think I'll have to. You give no indication of being interested either in truth or even in meaningful discussion. For those who are, I can only invite you, if interested, to review my arguments above, which I think speak for themselves, and to contact me, here or by PM, if you do have a meaningful counterargument, comment, or question.

@Putin - No response to my pointing out that there is a difference between a field of study and a professional position/title? Not surprising. You never admit you are wrong, just suddenly go silent and hope it goes away. Typical Putin33 non-response.

WTF I respond way too much which is my real problem. I have multiple people writing posts against me and you think I'm some wizard you can respond in an instant. GFY.

I realize there is a difference between a job title and a discipline, which is why software "engineering" is just a made-up term for a job title, which has nothing to do with the discipline - engineering, which is what I was referring to before you decided to go on your little rant.

"You give no indication of being interested either in truth or even in meaningful discussion."

By meaningful discussion you mean blindly accepting your silly straw man as a valid argument.

"So is your claim that evolutionary biology and the pythagorean theorem are elementary, basic, obvious, axiomatic truths like 2+2 = 4?"

My claim is your dictum that you have to have "good reasons" to recite something as fact, else it is 'belief', is utter nonsense, no matter how many times you tell me how non-controversial your point is, and no matter how many times you congratulate yourself for defeating me in this 'discussionn'.

That's right putin. My silly straw man claim that there are intelligent people who disbelieve evolution and dumb people who don't.

But yes natural selection is a basic fact. The main sticking point is you think this idea is up for grabs and 'controversial', which is why I said before your loaded question was anti-evolutionary.

I'm sure there are "smart" people who believe the earth is flat or seriously believe in Cthulthu, but they also happen to exist in a place that is detached from reality.

@putin -- again for the benefit of others, so my view is not twisted beyond recognition -- nowhere in anything I wrote did I say or even vaguely imply that the idea is either controversial or up for grabs. It is only your desire to pigeonhole what I am saying, combined with your apparently marginal reading comprehension skills, that lead you to think that has anything to do with my argument.

Substitute "the earth is round" in for evolution and everything I said would retain its force. And no, I don't think the roundness of the earth is up for grabs.

Finally, notice that my question was about whether evolution was as obvious and axiomatic as 2+2 = 4. In responding yes, you really lead me to wonder how it's possible that mankind missed it for so many millenia, and why Darwin gets so much credit for suggesting it.