Is 'Political Science' an oxymoron?

I studied it for 5 years and ended up with a master's degree. I can say that matters of ideology and political philosophy cropped up relatively little and courses on it were never about who is "right" and who isn't but rather about the history and meaning of certain ideological strands and their offshoots. Most of my studies were on how governments and political systems are organized and interact with each other, how different voting systems work, what the explanations are for certain voting behaviour among different populations, etc.

someone_else wrote: I'd rather say: Science is an oxymoron in itself as far as it is subdued to political agendas.

Science is, and always has been, affected by politics but science does not inherently present a contradiction in "term"; calling it an oxymoron doesn't really work. One could say the same of a great many things/ disciplines. Political/ economic, and social agendas have an effect on which research is funded, which research has been allowed, and sometimes what research has been allowed to be shared with the public (think Galileo).

Religious Science, as opposed to the science of religions, might be considered quite oxymoronic, or perhaps Supersticious Science. Or maybe Scientific Absolutism, or call it a form of Scientific Orthodoxy (scientific models should remain open to evaluation, better models may be put forth, it's an open set, it is not about certainty). Starting with a conclusion/ model, then only choosing data that fits that conclusion/ model would be anti the scientific method -- that would be intellectually dishonest, but it happens with "bad" people doing bad science. For instance, instead of starting with an observation, then inferring, you start with a conclusion then pick and choose only those observations that seem to fit the conclusion. One should be wary of biases (both our own and others), and biased data.

Anyway, I'm not a scientist, just someone interested in science. Do you work in the sciences?

Edited by Logan - December 23 2019 at 15:16

Logan wrote: someone_else wrote: I'd rather say: Science is an oxymoron in itself as far as it is subdued to political agendas. Science is, and always has been, affected by politics but science does not inherently present a contradiction in "term"; calling it an oxymoron doesn't really work. One could say the same of a great many things/ disciplines. Political/ economic, and social agendas have an effect on which research is funded, which research has been allowed, and sometimes what research has been allowed to be shared with the public (think Galileo). Religious Science, as opposed to the science of religions, might be considered quite oxymoronic, or perhaps Supersticious Science. Or maybe Scientific Absolutism, or call it a form of Scientific Orthodoxy (scientific models should remain open to evaluation, better models may be put forth, it's an open set, it is not about certainty). Starting with a conclusion/ model, then only choosing data that fits that conclusion/ model would be anti the scientific method -- that would be intellectually dishonest, but it happens with "bad" people doing bad science. For instance, instead of starting with an observation, then inferring, you start with a conclusion then pick and choose only those observations that seem to fit the conclusion. One should be wary of biases (both our own and others), and biased data. Anyway, I'm not a scientist, just someone interested in science. Do you work in the sciences?

 

It's not an oxymoron, though I've met plenty of poli-sci majors that are the densest, most clueless bunch despite believing they have superior knowledge on a topic.