Epistimological Nihilism?
After reading more of Geoffrey
Nunberg, I came to the following conclusion: there is no such thing as
political science, there never has, nor will there ever be.
The problem is the following: the vast majority of people, when doing a
survey with political consequences, are expecting a pre-ordained result.
This is obviously a problem, but there'’s even a problem with surveys
conducting by unbiased parties. Suppose a new survey is conducted
concluding X. There are two logical choices: 1) Accept the study or 2)
Reject
the study because of its methodology. If someone likes the conclusion of
the study, he/she will choose route 1, more often than not. If someone dislikes
the conclusion, route 2 is the method of choice. Even the most idiotic person on the planet, can, using this method, reject any disagreeable tidbit of "fact" without problem.
I also dislike "common sense" as a method for determining any political
fact on the face of the planet. First, I don't really know what “common sense” is. If I had to guess, it would be gut instinct. But in any other field other than politics, this method of knowledge would produce most foolhardy results. We could, for example, reject the fact that the earth is round (common sense says otherwise), fire all professors who believe this, and hire ones with "common sense". Because it has nothing to do with factuality, using solely "common sense" as a means of support in any political arena is equivalent to spewing unsupported political statements, or propaganda. The most infamous offenders of this are the hardballs of the world. (Though I do use my personal experience in this essay as an aid to my arguments, the validity of the arguments does not depend on my personal experiences being common to all, unlike, say, a statement about bias in the media).
If you dislike the conclusion I've made here, remember one thing. If you don't like it, just say the means of attaining it are flawed, and you can continue to live in your happy bubble.