“In particular people it makes people underrate the value of the public debate and complex coalition building and focus to[sic] much on elections as if they are the only way that public policy get’s[sic] decided.”
There’s a lot more to political science than non-causal models predicting elections. Coalition-building, to borrow your example, is a particularly rich topic of study.
There’s a lot more to political science than non-causal models predicting elections.
Here my core concern isn’t so much political science but people from a STEM mindset trying to understand politics and then focusing their energies on easily modeled processes and thereby misunderstand the complexity of politics.
“In particular people it makes people underrate the value of the public debate and complex coalition building and focus to[sic] much on elections as if they are the only way that public policy get’s[sic] decided.”
There’s a lot more to political science than non-causal models predicting elections. Coalition-building, to borrow your example, is a particularly rich topic of study.
Here my core concern isn’t so much political science but people from a STEM mindset trying to understand politics and then focusing their energies on easily modeled processes and thereby misunderstand the complexity of politics.
If you want to know more about my position see the discussion on http://lesswrong.com/lw/krp/three_methods_of_attaining_change/ .
Ah, the sweet smell of common ground! I definitely agree with this.