HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT POLITICS? Sources of knowledge about politics other than being “scientific” Tradition and culture Authority Commonsense Personal observation Problems with these “methods” We are often wrong! (we dismiss low probability events, discounting the future, reading intention into everything and every outcome, correlation and missing variables; over emphasizing the last variable in a series of causes) Overgeneralization Selective interpretation Disinformation is purposely created

WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH? Scientific Research: The systematic, controlled, empirical, and critical investigation of hypothetical propositions about the presumed relations among [various] phenomena The scientific method: The method of testing theories and hypotheses by applying certain rules of analysis to the observation and interpretation of reality under strictly delineated circumstances The practical way we do this: Choose topic Formulate theory… See parsimony (Occam's razor) Operationalize the theory with testable hypotheses Select the appropriate research techniques Observe behavior or proxies of attitudes Analyze data (and try to prove yourself wrong!) Interpret the results with respect to the theory and change your mind if necessary

WHAT ATTRIBUTES DOES RESEARCH HAVE TO HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED SCIENTIFIC We focus on aggregates, not individuals, to make statements about reality. Probabilistic statements. We don't have to be right in every case to know something (necessary vs. sufficient cause) Open to empirical verification. What direct/indirect evidence can we look at to understand Trump’s motivations/incentives to understand why he does what he does? Research has to be logical, systematic, and controlled. Research must be subject to falsifiability (Karl Popper) Transmissible (other scholars must know your methods) Replicable (Rogoff, austerity, and Excel)

SOCIAL SCIENECE AS A DISCPLINE AND INSTITUTION (A SET OF NORMS OR RULES THAT GUIDE BEHAVIOR IN PREDICABLE WAYS) Thomas Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm Universalism. Ideas are supposed to be independent of their author (blind review) Communalism: Knowledge is supposed to belong to everyone and thus data is supposed to be open for replication Honesty. Why must we cite so carefully? Why does journalism have a much looser standard? Why is the temptation to cheat so high? How do social scientists sometimes cheat? What happens if you cheat? Professionalization (gatekeeping) What does this mean for limits on what ideas are expressed and which questions are pursued? Why does Kuhn believe that the professionalization is not a bad thing (what are its links to "revolutions")?

DEBATES ABOUT THE SCIENTIFCATION OF SOC SCI RESEARCH The biggest concern: Relevancy. Are we too specialized, too “cutting edge,” and too quantitative to either understand in explain in understandable ways important issues? Think about a mosaic How objective do we need to be in (1) what we study… (2) what we report… (3) in whether we let familiarity with the topic carry over into normative areas? The liberal arts college professor critique: Are social scientists getting better at research or just going from one type of gatekeeping to the next? Congressional funders and “real” scientists: Is human behavior is just too complex to predict? Is there something creepy about social science, since human agency is what makes us human? Post-modern critique—You can’t be unbiased even if you adopt the scientific method… even the scientific method and its way of proving things is biased. Think about baseball as a completely constructed activity. Anthropologists and Kuhn—When you come from a paradigm, you see what you want to see (old lady’s nose cancer, sea urchins cluster in the sun). Popper’s solution