just like all the quantitative work on redistricting is also politics.
I do not see how the quantitative analysis of redistricting is political analysis. Please explain.
Political Science Job Rumors » General Job Market Discussion » Methodology/Theory Debates
Qualitative methods
(6328 posts)-
Posted 6 months ago #
-
just like all the quantitative work on redistricting is also politics.
Quantitative work on redistricting is political analysis in the same way that nuclear weapons science is political analysis. It has political implications, but it is not political science.
Posted 6 months ago # -
WRONG! Redistricting is about elephants, race cars, and big hairy bugs. Prove that it is not.
Posted 6 months ago # -
^^ Define "Political Science".
Posted 6 months ago # -
Political science is analyzing human cognition as it relates to state behavior and social behavior deemed to have macro-importance (e.g., media behavior).
Posted 6 months ago # -
Can I have a defense of that definition? I've never seen anyone but you define it that way. Can you point me to some citations that propose or defend that view?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Political science is analyzing human cognition as it relates to state behavior and social behavior deemed to have macro-importance (e.g., media behavior).
FAIL. I don't see any mention of elephants here.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Can I have a defense of that definition?
More importantly, what is your criticism of it? Only then can someone fashion a defense.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Really? Then I claim that political science is about elephants. What is your criticism?
Posted 6 months ago # -
What is your criticism?
My criticism is that political science is about elephants to the extent that politics effects elephants (i.e., wilderness preservation). But elephants do not cause politics. Instead, they are affected by them.
Posted 6 months ago # -
If an elephant trampled the halls of Congress, would it cause politics?
If an elephant blocked a road and a truck carrying nuclear weapons crashed into it, would it cause politics?
If an elephant farted in a voting booth in a poor part of the US leading the Democrats to lose votes, would that cause politics?I'm beginning to think this blog needs an elephant section!
Posted 6 months ago # -
If an elephant trampled the halls of Congress, would it cause politics?
If an elephant blocked a road and a truck carrying nuclear weapons crashed into it, would it cause politics?
If an elephant farted in a voting booth in a poor part of the US leading the Democrats to lose votes, would that cause politics?Only cognition causes politics. Thus, unless your claim is that the elephant behaved in these ways in a conscious effort to affect state behavior or, otherwise, macro-behavior, then the answer to all your questions is No. But thanks for playing. It's been fun.
Posted 6 months ago # -
I didn't write ^^. But I think that your thinking about how to think about social science is really flawed. We should not make claims and wait for other people to attack them. Instead we should explain the logic behind our claims, anticipate the best responses others may offer, and support our position with reasoning and evidence. You do none of these, so I am not sure why anyone would take your position any more seriously than this elephant theory.
Posted 6 months ago # -
So how Hurricane Katrina affects New Orleans politics would not, by your definition, be considered politics? Why or why not?
Posted 6 months ago # -
YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT. "Political science" is not about elephants! REDISTRICTING and REDISTRICTING ONLY is about elephants!
Posted 6 months ago # -
how Hurricane Katrina affects New Orleans politics would not, by your definition, be considered politics?
People's response to the Hurricane can be politics, but not the Hurricane itself. Just like the elephant's behavior is not political, but the way individuals respond to its behavior can be political.
Posted 6 months ago # -
We should not make claims and wait for other people to attack them.
Why?
Instead we should explain the logic behind our claims, anticipate the best responses others may offer, and support our position with reasoning and evidence.
Why?
I think that your thinking about how to think about social science is really flawed.
What does any of this have to do with social science?
Posted 6 months ago # -
REDISTRICTING and REDISTRICTING ONLY is about elephants!
Okay. You run with that.
Posted 6 months ago # -
You need to focus on three things, qually.
1. Elephants
2. Race cars
3. Big hairy bugsGet on it.
Posted 6 months ago # -
/ \~~~~/ \
,-------( .. )
/ \___ __/
/| ( \ |(
^ \ /___\ / \ |
|__| |__|- "RRROOOOWRRRR! Redistricting is about me, chump.
Posted 6 months ago # -
••••••••••••••/••\~~~~/••\•••
•••••,-------(•••••••**•••••)••
••••/•••••••••\___••••••__/••
•••/|•••••••••••••(•\•••|(••••••
••^•\••••/___\••••/\••|•••••••
•••••|__|••••••|__|-•"•••••••NO! Redistricting is about me.
Posted 6 months ago # -
'd'
Posted 6 months ago # -
You need to focus on three things, qually.
1. Elephants
2. Race cars
3. Big hairy bugsWhy?
Posted 6 months ago # -
why not? I've proposed that these are the roots of political science and now it is up to you to criticize! Remember that I don't have to defend my view of the world until you mount a cogent critique, and that (if I play by your rules) I can just ask why after anything you say!
Posted 6 months ago # -
You still haven't acknowledged that redistricting is about ELEPHANTS, RACE CARS, and BIG HAIRY BUGS!
Posted 6 months ago #