Political science and skepticism: Politics needs critical thought
Podcast: Download
By Jason Y
Article ID: 1256
When someone thinks of the word “skeptic” or thinks about the movement in general, they get ideas about exposing Bigfoot hunters and cracking down on pseudoscience. Although issues like these are a part of the skepticism war, there are many other ridiculous claims and scams that are, for the most part, unchecked. There is a need for a sober skeptical attitude when ANY claim is based on false pretenses, or preys on the uneducated and ill-informed. Many of these claims are politically based, and come from the highest political sources. Particularly in light of the upcoming American presidential elections, a political skeptical resource is all the more crucial.
Political science is not a “science”, but can often be evaluated for truth
Some say that political science is not a science at all and therefore cannot be subject to the same caliber of skepticism as the “hard” sciences. Even fields like economics are only “soft sciences.”
I completely agree that political science is not a science by definition, and that many aspects are based on personal values. These are often completely separate from facts and statistics. This is why you would be hard pressed to hear an educated political scientist say something like, “Conservative policies are wrong.” In this regard, I agree that skepticism has no place. What one person holds important can differ from another. In some cases, two people with differing political opinions can both be correct, where in a “hard science” there can be a definite right and wrong. If two people were to argue between the atomic weight of hydrogen, we can test the argument and show who was right. But if two people argue about Democrats versus Republicans, there is no such thing as being correct.
Politics needs skepticism
In spite of this, there is still a place in politics for skepticism. Although personal values cannot be proven right or wrong, facts can be. Take a popular concept like, “Tighter gun control and government intervention in the market has historically lead to communism.” This can be spoken right into a camera, and will be blindly believed by thousands or millions. While there is no evidence I’ve read to support this claim, many people believe it. Because of situations like this, there is a need for a skeptical outlook in politics. I mean that we not argue against values, but we evaluate based on facts and evidence, and not absurd claims.
Political skepticism is also needed in the field of public polling. Many people are not aware of how exactly the polls work, but they can look at two numbers, see which one is higher and conclude who is “in the lead.” Yet this may not be the case, and I dare say in most situations it is not. Margins of error are very important, as well as survey size and the type of people interviewed. Most of the time you need to dig quite deep to find such details. There are many questionable surveys conducted with inaccurate conclusions. These results are published. When these support the view of a particular political group, the group of course presents these numbers as the truth, when they are nothing more than inconclusive.
Despite someone’s political views, it is hard to debate against clearly recorded history. Nonetheless, such facts can be distorted and shaped to fit a political view. A terrific example is the burning of the White House in 1812. Ask a Canadian about the events of 1812. You’d get a different answer from an American. You’d get a different answer from a Briton. In politics, a rational, skeptical attitude examining facts from all sides is not only important, but necessary.
Politics, the media and critical thought
As with many absurd claims, perceived credibility often spreads through the media. When ghost hunters appear in headlines, true believers are created by the minute. And the same holds true in the political arena. When the media reports how a leader’s reforms would cripple the economy, many people absorb this as fact and unyielding truth, even though they – and the article’s author – may have no economic or political knowledge. The majority of the population relies on the media’s perception of events because the readers don’t have the facts available. This leads to stories being blurred with half-truths. Unfortunately, this is where most of the population gets its political news.
We need a fact-based political source, where interested people can get information without spin, mud-slinging or personal bias. Concepts like “welfare state” and “conservative” are thrown around with so many meanings that even the sharpest political scientists are confused. We need a clear source of definitions and unbiased historical accounts.
We Americans turn on the T.V., and are flooded with information about Tibet, Iraq, Africa and countless other places we know little about. We hear that events are taking place, we see video clips of an area, and process a few statistics. However, we are rarely given the full history of the story, the clips we see might not even be of the place in question, and there’s the unreliability of many statistics. There’s a lot of quality political science reporting, but it’s very difficult to distinguish it from the ramblings of a heavily biased reporter.
Definition of pseudo-political science
I’d like to end with what I consider the proper definition of pseudo-political science. While a quick Google search will show you that the term has been used before, I couldn’t find an adequate definition for it. While I am quite aware that I am by no means qualified to create official definitions, that there may be a better and more official definition elsewhere, and that my last name is not “Webster”, for our purposes this definition will suffice.
Pseudo-political science: Any political opinion, methodology or belief that is presented as fact, or is based on untrue facts. Examples: “Lincoln was a bad President.” “Welfare states have always had the worst economies.”
Pseudo-political science is a big problem in today’s culture; facts are twisted or completely made up. The United States does poor world-wide reporting: Our news is so ethnocentric the truth barely floats to the surface. When a news program fades from science reporting and switches to political news, we must not close our skeptical eye. Instead we should be just as wary of any claims, and double-check those facts that appear to be a little odd.
Podcast
Support
Email alerts
RSS
Facebook