So much relevant expertise in political science. This would be so much better as a team project that included them.https://twitter.com/GovernorTomWolf/status/962060492175900674 …
Show this thread
-
Yes, I like that example a lot. I do disagree with the sharp division you draw between science and politics in that book (science seems more political to me, and politics at least a little more concerned with search for knowledge than you say, as best as I recall it).
I was trying to make a very specific point about the conditions under which knowledge can build. I'd be a bit more measured today, particularly understanding some of the problems around replication - many fields of science seem to barely deserve the term.
-
-
By contrast, there are parts of mathematic & physics (& a few other fields, though spottier) where it's possible to make tight arguments thousands of pages long, integrating the results of tens of thousands of people. I know of nothing remotely like that in politics.
-
The complexity of the argument behind something like the Poincare conjecture (which I do _not_ understand in detail, though I understand pieces of the background) is really astounding, and relies on very, very tight conditions for accepting results.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
But I should also note that my suggestion for any academic who waxes too lyrical about democracy that wherever they use terms like “deliberative democratic setting” they should paste in “departmental committee meeting” instead, and see if argument still seems compelling to them
-
One amusing variant of this is to talk to natural scientists about politics. Most - not all, but most - rely on standards of argument that they'd give a student an F for in their own field. (I'm guilty.) Talk to a polisci person on the other hand, & you get a real argument...
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.