@profmusgrave Paul, you're touching on something that I've noticed about political science, from the viewpoint of a physical scientist. 1/
@profmusgrave My sense of political science theory is that it's different from physical science theory.
Physical scientists advance hypotheses, test them, and eventually build a structure called a theory. The pieces of that structure generally come out of experiment or observation. 2/
Physical scientists advance hypotheses, test them, and eventually build a structure called a theory. The pieces of that structure generally come out of experiment or observation. 2/
@profmusgrave There are theories like string theory that are difficult to validate, but they are developed to explain observed facts. 3/
@profmusgrave In contrast, it seems like political science theories are built from the top down. What if power is the major operative fact in international relations? How about if we add in idealistic notions like human rights? 4/
@profmusgrave That's a legitimate way to build a theory, but validation becomes more difficult. For physical science theories, you've got a bunch of small-scale validations. For top-down, you've got to find natural experiments and observations. 5/
@profmusgrave And those selections are likely to involve confirmation bias and lots of other problems. 6/
@profmusgrave You can't do experiments in international relations, of course. Or at least not the kind you can do in physical science. 7/
@profmusgrave I can see that I could go on for quite a while about this, but I'll wind it up here.
The structure and validation of theory in political science is necessarily different than in physical science. That has many implications for how political science is taught and validated.
The structure and validation of theory in political science is necessarily different than in physical science. That has many implications for how political science is taught and validated.
