What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close

Is Political Science a Science?

September 5, 2013, 9:41 AM
48-98-9-me-wtst-socrates1

Well, it depends on what you mean by science.

There was a panel at the recent meeting of the American Poitical Science Association on the (alleged?) outrage of the "Coburn Amendment."  Sen. Coburn successfully proposed that funding for political science from the National Science Foundation be limited to projects that demonstrably contribute to economic prosperity or natural security.

The panel was composed of a dozen members of the political science establishment—all of who were about strategizing on how to get the more expansive funding back—and ME. I was brought in as the token representative of the (allegedly?) small minority of political scientists who thought that Coburn had a point.

Well, Coburn thinks political science in America is too partisan. I disputed that. But I did tend to agree that it's at least very questionable that political science does or should fit under the NSF's understanding of science. My heretical comments were duly reported in places like The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed.

But here's what they didn't report. I actually proposed that political science be funded in a different way. My complete remarks with a little editorializing can be found at Law and LibertyMy most innovative and disruptive comments are below:

I would widen our understanding of what political science is to include Aristotle, The Federalist, Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, Machiavelli, and the reflections of our most astute political leaders. I wouldn’t deny that there’s something irreducibly partisan about political inquiry, as well as something, perhaps, irreducibly technological and methodical. But political inquiry is also about a devotion to the truth about who we are as other than the other animals and God.

There’s no way what political science is can be captured by the standards of either the National Science Foundation or the National Endowment for the Humanities. So I would propose a third government foundation for distinctively political inquiry. There, perhaps, we political scientists would feel less vulnerable to being misunderstood and just more at home.

Here are two purposes among many of this new foundation: It would criticize projects from the NSF when they lapse into scientism—when they claim to explain everything with a reductionist theory that has no place for political science. And, of course, it would criticize the NEH for its relativism.

 

Is Political Science a Scie...

Newsletter: Share: