Throughout class discussions, we’ve addressed and discussed the question of whether political science should be considered a science or not and why. One of the biggest critiques of political science is the lack of empirical evidence to support the claims it tries to make. This flaw in research is clear in two places in David Lerners’s “The Passing of Traditional Society”. In both places, Lerner claims to have insight into the minds and hearts of the people he is interviewing. When writing about the grocer, Lerner claims that the grocer was “nervous and also proud to be interviewed although he tried to hide it” (Lerner 22). This is a bold claim with very little evidence to support it. Later when Lerner explains how the Balgati people interpret the grocer, he writes that “Some Balgati were talking loud about the Grocer to keep their own inner voices from being overheard by the Chief- or even by themselves” (Lerner 25). Again, another bold assumption with no sufficient supporting evidence. I think this problem goes beyond the ability of Lerner to produce sufficient evidence. Here, Lerner is assuming he can break into the world of the private, a world that its by definition exclusive. No one can see into the minds and hearts of other people, period. Lerner, armed with the assumption that he can, makes two different claims about the feelings of other people. It is possible that Lerner is trying to do what Scott says we must do and provide our own interpretations to what we observe, but I don’t think Lerner has enough authority or credibility to interpret the actions of these people and comment on their motives, thoughts, or feelings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Throughout class discussions, we’ve addressed and discussed the question of whether political science should be considered a science or not and why. One of the biggest critiques of political science is the lack of empirical evidence to support the claims … Continue reading