You are correct to observe that I am skeptical of the very idea that there can be "a science of politics" or "a science of history" or "a science of literature." Mostly I think that it is possible that such sciences are beyond human capability. The reason they might be beyond human capability is that we are unable to understand or decode the paradoxes of "intention" and "meaning" and "counterfactuality" that would undergird any such sciences. But I must emphasize that this is just a guess. Scientific theories are a very, very recent human phenomena and there are not many historical conclusions we can draw with great certainty.
I really don't think that there is any special knowledge needed to understand politics or hsitory. Good solidaristic political organization, discussion and argument, and hard work and searching investigation is enough.
So, what I'm getting here is that political and social life conforms to no
> laws
> and/or is so obvious on the face of it that it requires no special
> investigation
> or study.
You are confusing methodology with theory. A good method is needed for investigation and study in any discipline. Hard work is needed to find out almost anything interesting. Moreover, it is usually very difficult to say or discover anything interesting. (So we shouldn't be surprised that most of what we write is just marking time. That's just the way life is.)
Further I would like to say that a scientific point of view is important in the study of history. I have insisted that most knowledge is mostly "non theoretical" even within the sciences. The sciences work more like a "craft" discipline than anything else. People learn by working hard and working with others. The knowledge of the craft of science and the knowledge that the integrity of the craft produces is not at all a part of the theories developed to give depth of explanation to phenomena. The same is true of hsitorical and political investigation. It can be scientific without being theoretical. It can be methodologically disciplined with out developing theoretical systems or models.
And further a respect for evidence and integrity of presentation are also necessary scientific qualtiies developed by many historians, sociologists, anthropologists etc. This goes along with the attempt to make the evidence transparent and traceable.
Well, I suppose that explains why I disagree with your posts on other
> things. Heh, since we were on the subject, some irritating Mao for ya, 'no
> investigation, no right to speak.'
JM: Everybody should have the right to speak, which is why I dislike Mao. Though without investigation and hard work (and often a good methodology) you will very rarely, if ever, have anything interesting to say.
Jerry
Jenny Brown
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
--