If it's got science in the name then it's not a real science.

No counterexamples, thank you.

Most people don’t know shit about 99.9% of the universe.

this feels linguistically correct, as science simply means "to study" so, "political to study" doesn't make linguistic sense, IMHO.

So-called "hard science" mfers struggling to tolerate that everything we've ever conceived of is through the subjective lens of being a human

Except for Dr. Brian Fisher

Physical science.

Boom. Roasted.

As a poli sci major, I can tell you that I fully agree political science is not a real science.

Parts of it generate reliably useful and accurate predictions... a lot of the rest of it is basically just secular religious dogma and apologia for such.

Here, we can prove out with repeated game theory sets that I really am not a threat, if this is needed by the big math brains, lol.

Like any science, it's only as good as the people studying it.

Parts of it generate reliably useful and accurate predictions

These people are doing science

a lot of the rest of it is basically just secular religious dogma and apologia for such

These people are not doing science

It's actually through the intersubjective lense of human society.

I don't know everything about my house.

That's the thing, instead of mocking people who do fake science, they mock subjects. And that's how you end up with so many morons believing in sect leaders just because they are working in "real" scientific subjects, so they must have the answer to the universe.

What? It's very obvious. Most of the universe is extremely dense, hyper efficient, computational matter. The stuff we can see was left for new species to develop and advance so as to provide novel minds to the one that got there first.

We're in a nature preserve. It is by far the most likely outcome. We can't see it for the same reason an ant burrowing out of the surface of the mall parking lot can't see the Khols, and even if it could it would just think it's part of the forest.

It has been billions of years. Thinking we're the first intelligent species is some Abrahamic masturbation.

The problem is that the term 'political scientist' does not make this distinction.

The people who use this term, self-identify with this term, do not make this distinction.

I know, because I am one of them.

I ... have a poli sci degree, have done 'political science'.

I mock, or critique the field... from within it.

If it is to be an actual science... it needs to be more empirical, more falseifiable, needs to be amenable to self-correction, by weeding out the bullshit and replacing it with / re-orienting around... actual empiricism, disprovable concepts.

Part of the problem is as you say, that people mock things they disgree with or do not understand, and then look to even more dubious sources of 'knowledge' to inform themselves, who are often simply more charismatic or confident sounding.

... but a large part of why that happens, is that a lot of the methods that people who call themselves 'scientists' use... are not very scientific, and thus become little better than elitist dogmas that require a college degree to be initiated into.

Go look at how many ideological 'thought leaders', ideological talking heads for absurd poltical ideologies... have political science degrees, and use those to signal reasoned and educated authority behind their often dubious opinions, which they often present as simply fact.

I mock or critique the field broadly, because this is a broad and widespread problem.

Or, you can argue the entire term 'Political Science' is a misnomer.

One generally first achieves an Arts degree, not a Science degree, in 'Political Science'... because there is generally little emphasis on math or the mechanics of empiricism.

I do very much think that the humanities are incredibly important fields of study.. but maybe we should not have a situation where we call people with most often Arts degrees 'Scientists'.