Is politics a science?

[MaC]

I'm inclined to say no.  It's definitely a study, but not a science.  I say this because of the massive scale of people it's based on.  For a scientific law to be proven, it must have an expiriment done thousands of times, with the same conditions in place, but there's no way to measure elections like this because of the different people involved, the time in which they are involved, and the variability in human nature.  At most, we have theory with politics, but that changes all the time, and it's not a very good indicator.
 Your imput?

[Gabu]

No.  Political stuff centers around human opinions and reactions, which I personally feel are far too weird to ever be explained through rigorous science.

[Beet]

Depends on what you call a science.

[Alcon]

Gabu nails it - there are no laws in politics, no proof, no definition. There is not necessarily a seeking of knowledge or clarification, and oftentimes there is the very opposite. Politics is more a culture than it is a science.

[??????????]

Maybe the science of lying.

[J.R. Brown]

The science of public opinion. It's a social science, whatever that means.

[John Dibble]

I'd say it's more of an art form than a science. Maybe something in between the two.

[Citizen James]

It's a specialized form of sociology.  It is not a hard science, like physics or chemestry, but it does use some scientific methodology in attempting to quantify and predict human behavior - so I would think it qualifies as a scientific disipline at least in some ways.

Given the nature of human behavior, it is more difficult to get results with the same level of precision you would expect for physics, yet it is possible to form and test hypotisis with and get fairly reliable results - such as which gerrymandered districts are 'safe', or the odds strongly favoring the Republican candidate to take Utah in 2008.

[TexasPatriot2024]

I'd say it's more of an art form than a science. Maybe something in between the two.

I agree, it mixes many sciences like Human Geography and Sociology but furthermore Public Speaking and good old fashioned charisma.

[ATFFL]

It is a science and a hard science since you can run experiments.

Things like:  Will people elect a peanut farmer over a mildly unpopular incumbent?

Will people elect an ex-B-list actor over a wildly unpopular incumbent peanut farmer?

Will people elect a man who promises to raise taxes over a highly popular incumbent?

Will people elect a milquetoast Massachusetts liberal over a sitting VP?

Will people elect a sexual deviant over a mildly unpopular President with an anti-incumbent spoiler in the race?

Will people elect an angry seeming war hero over a very popular incumbent with a Ferengi in the race?

Will people elect the son of a former President over a sitting VP with a complete loony also in the race?

How do people feel about those Massachusetts liberals now?

[John Dibble]

It is a science and a hard science since you can run experiments.

Things like:  Will people elect a peanut farmer over a mildly unpopular incumbent?

Will people elect an ex-B-list actor over a wildly unpopular incumbent peanut farmer?

Will people elect a man who promises to raise taxes over a highly popular incumbent?

Will people elect a milquetoast Massachusetts liberal over a sitting VP?

Will people elect a sexual deviant over a mildly unpopular President with an anti-incumbent spoiler in the race?

Will people elect an angry seeming war hero over a very popular incumbent with a Ferengi in the race?

Will people elect the son of a former President over a sitting VP with a complete loony also in the race?

How do people feel about those Massachusetts liberals now?

The problem is such experiments won't necessarily give you consistent results - first off you've got different areas, second off you've got different political conditions at different times. Scientific experiments should give you somewhat consistent results.

[ATFFL]

The problem is such experiments won't necessarily give you consistent results - first off you've got different areas, second off you've got different political conditions at different times. Scientific experiments should give you somewhat consistent results.

I dunno, the "Massachusetts liberal" theory has been pretty thoroughly vetted.

Not to mention "Libertarians suck" is doing fairly well. 

[John Dibble]

The problem is such experiments won't necessarily give you consistent results - first off you've got different areas, second off you've got different political conditions at different times. Scientific experiments should give you somewhat consistent results.

I dunno, the "Massachusetts liberal" theory has been pretty thoroughly vetted.

Not to mention "Libertarians suck" is doing fairly well. 

LOL. Still, doesn't have to do with peanut farmers, now does it? Plus, the inconsistent results still apply - a Mass. Liberal might be a good thing 20 years from now. *shudder*

[Gabu]

LOL. Still, doesn't have to do with peanut farmers, now does it? Plus, the inconsistent results still apply - a Mass. Liberal might be a good thing 20 years from now. *shudder*

Hey, it worked in 1960.

[AuH2O]

When the idea of "science" was basically created by Aristotle, he considered politics the most important of the sciences. Politics can and is studied empirically (data) and logically, just as any other science is.

The results are just harder to interpret, which perhaps reinforces the point.

If psychology is science, then politics sure as hell is, though I would dispute some aspects of the former.

[ATFFL]

LOL. Still, doesn't have to do with peanut farmers, now does it? Plus, the inconsistent results still apply - a Mass. Liberal might be a good thing 20 years from now. *shudder*

Hey, it worked in 1960.

In 1960 it was a little harder to say who was liberal and conservative.

[angus]

I'm inclined to say no.  It's definitely a study, but not a science.  I say this because of the massive scale of people it's based on.  For a scientific law to be proven, it must have an expiriment done thousands of times, with the same conditions in place, but there's no way to measure elections like this because of the different people involved, the time in which they are involved, and the variability in human nature.  At most, we have theory with politics, but that changes all the time, and it's not a very good indicator.
 Your imput?

I agree with you.  Experimenting on the Economy is dangerous and has global and long-term consequences, so it doesn't lend itself to the scientific method readily. 

That said, I do believe that US politicians operate in a fairly scientific fashion.  Carl Sagan wrote an interesting persuasive piece dealing with the scientific nature by which US, and to some degree other OECD country politics are done once, maybe back in about 1990.  I'll try to see if I can post a link if it exists on the internet.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

When the idea of "science" was basically created by Aristotle, he considered politics the most important of the sciences. Politics can and is studied empirically (data) and logically, just as any other science is.

The results are just harder to interpret, which perhaps reinforces the point.

If psychology is science, then politics sure as hell is, though I would dispute some aspects of the former.

I agree.  I'm sure that one day an analyst will come up with an equation about a page long that will accurately predict your own stances on certain issues, just from the data put in.  Obviously that's a lot easier said than done, because of the near infinite number of factors to account for.

Anyways, the people who study politics could consider it a science, but the people who take part in it probably wouldn't.