Paper代写：The science of politics

本篇paper代写- The science of politics讨论了政治学科的科学性。对于不同学科来说，理论和体系的争论与分化的程度是不一样的。越是处在发展中的但还不够完善的和成熟的学科，体系分化和争论的程度就较为厉害。但这种分化和论争是学科走向成熟而不断具备科学性的必经环节。政治学目前的发展水平也决定了这一学科体系、理论的繁杂性和竞争性，但它决不是这一学科不具备科学性的论据，相反，它标志着政治学正在走向发展和完善。本篇paper代写由51due代写平台整理，供大家参考阅读。

In political science, and in all social sciences, people have value problems. Political life is an important part of human social life. Political phenomena and political process are directly related to human peace and development. Any kind of political structure, political norms or even a political event is impossible for human beings to make an evaluation of approval or opposition without considering its role and influence and from the interests of individuals and groups. Although there are political apathy levels in real political life to varying degrees, right? But this indifference is by no means a political isolation, and it demonstrates the dissatisfaction and revulsion of certain political actors towards the political status and political environment in which they are currently situated. Apathy itself is a political judgment. Therefore, it is impossible and impossible to live and develop in a realistic political form by only talking about political facts, not about the evaluation of political facts, and not considering whether the political facts that have already happened should happen or not. Although David easton identifies George horan sabine as a conservative political theorist and attacks him for linking factual judgments to value judgments, a close reading of sabine's book makes sense. In the preface to the first edition of a history of political theory, sabine argued that "fidelity to historical material -- the duty of every serious historian -- or acknowledgment of partiality -- is something that every honest man has -- and that one cannot claim to be impartial. Otherwise, pride yourself on being unbiased, shallow or boastful.

Sabine's preference is a euphemism for value evaluation. It is not just a question of value in political science research, but whether it makes political science less scientific. In the development of human knowledge, truth, justice and virtue are unified. Truth always stands for justice and virtue. And justice and virtue are always true. Therefore, facts and values, "what is" and "what should be" are not opposites, but interdependent and mutually restrictive. In political life, any stipulation of "ought" is derived from the requirement of human beings to develop forward and upward, and these requirements can only be made according to the inherent, inevitable and stable connection of political life. Therefore, if the political scientists to be able to stand on behalf of the direction of the development of human history class, class, political parties and the group's position, using reflect the law of development of human political life, ideal standard and principle to political matter real practical value assessment, the scientific evaluation rather than weakening the political science knowledge, on the contrary, because it will be true reason and justice organically, so as to make political science reflects the actual situation of political life and all the political living in accord with the duty of the creator and the human requirements, therefore, it is more scientific.

Behaviorism political scientists often talk about the tendency of value neutrality in the study of natural science, and to request other political research house in binary logic framework for painful choice: or adhere to the scientific nature, such as natural science that yao, you should also like natural science, to refuse or reject value evaluation, the so-called "value things"; Or to insist on the value judgment at the same time as the fact judgment, then, with the nature of natural science departure, political science lost scientific nature.

The above view of behaviorists contains an unjustified "axiom" that neither natural science nor value judgment can be used. In other words, natural science cannot be valued. This so-called "axiom" is actually absurd. Since natural science is the product and tool of human understanding and transformation of the world, human beings must be at the center of the development of natural science, and human beings should be the scale of natural science. This status and function of human inevitably requires natural science to serve itself, and requires it to perfect and develop from the needs of human beings. This inevitably raises the question of the human being's evaluation of his own natural scientific research. Of course, natural science does not lose its scientific character because of such evaluation. Similarly, political science, like all natural sciences, does not exclude value judgments, and it is in the rigorous evaluation of values that it constantly improves its scientific nature. Scientific and ideological

What is relevant to value is ideology. There are different understandings of ideology in real life. One kind of understanding regards ideology as a kind of mistaken cognition or a whole set of political myths and political illusions which are formed from the interests of certain classes in the society. This understanding has to do with the original origins of ideology and also with western political traditions. Another understanding is to regard ideology, which is the category opposite to social consciousness in the form of social psychology.

The concept of "ideology" originated from the enlightenment of European Renaissance. In this movement, a group of theorists and thinkers advocated a kind of "thought science" to oppose the religious teaching in the middle ages of Europe. They believed that to exorcise religious superstition and oppose theological fantasy, they needed to find and create the tools and means of certain thoughts. This kind of tool and means as thinking is "ideology". Obviously, this understanding of the origin of ideology has contained some subjective, mandatory, utilitarian component.

This negative element of ideological understanding was later inherited and abused by some bourgeois thinkers. It gradually evolved into a kind of political myth and political prejudice that defended the capitalist system and the social pathology. Marx and some progressive thinkers have criticized this ideology. In the German ideology, markus clearly pointed out that the German ideology at that time was filled with the wrong ideas and a whole set of political illusions reflecting the declining feudal class and the emerging bourgeois private interests, which he called the "ideology" of German society at that time. It is pointed out that the proletariat must struggle with all the reactionary classes in order to recognize this ideological reactivity and establish correct philosophical thinking.

Mannheim, a western political scientist, also distinguished two kinds of "ideology" from another perspective. One is the notion of a broader content, an ideology of "an era or a concrete historical social group or a class." In this way, there are three "ideological" factors in the process of human realistic political life: one is political propaganda and preaching that covers up the truth of political life and confuses the public with false things; One is the political principle, stand and ideal of a certain class and group; One is the spiritual concept that exists as a systematic and standardized social and political psychology. These three ideological factors are often intertwined.

In American political life, there exists an ideology that represents the interests of American monopoly bourgeoisie and contains these three factors. The ideology says: "the nature of American society is right, well, it is unrealistic to make alternative arrangements". The American government carries out its global strategy with this set of ideas. If it is consistent with the American ideology, it will support it, and if it is at odds with the American ideology, it will attack it. America wants to universalize its ideology around the world. The study of official political science in the United States permeates this ideology.

In the western political life led by the United States, the ideology playing a greater role not only represents the interests of the contemporary monopolized bourgeoisie, but also embodies the political principles, positions and ideals of the monopolized bourgeoisie. Moreover, it also contains many cover-ups, deceiving the public and narrating the people's goods.

With all kinds of political prejudice in the process of western industrialization, many political scientists put forward the proposition of "the end of ideology". This proposition itself contains both rationality and mystery. This proposition is justified when it is used only to dispel the harsh elements of social reality hidden in the rhetoric of western politicians and in the fraudulent mass media. However, if we want to use this proposition to show that any political position or idea will not affect political research, it is promoting another kind of confusing political myth.

To deny the influence of ideology on the study of politics, or to attempt to abolish it, is of the same nature, that is, to promote a myth of self-deception. It is impossible to attain the scientific nature of political science with such a myth. In the study of actual politics, political scientists always observe and think about political life with certain ideology, and describe and evaluate the state of the existence and development of political life. Only by acknowledging the influence of ideology on political science research and fully considering the negative influence of such influence on the objectivity and scientificity of political science research can political scientists always keep a clear mind and a calm attitude in the research, so as to strive to stick to the scientificity of research.

A considerable number of those who deny the scientific nature of political science take the unity of physical theory as the standard, and assert that the existence of many competing theoretical systems of political science cannot be scientific. However, if we can consider the history of scientific development for a little bit, we will find that both natural science and social science are following the law of "decentralization -- unification -- decentralization". People like today's physics because it is basically unified in Einstein's theory of relativity, and there are few other schools of thought or schools to contend with it. But physics does not arrive at today's state all at once.

Until now, physicists have been divided and fiercely contested on many important areas of the subject. For example, there has been a long debate between particle theory and wave theory about the nature of light. For example, there was a long dispute between the Einstein school and the Heisenberg school on what is the "reality" of physics. However, because of these different schools and systems, physical scientists do not easily conclude that the scientific nature of physics is negated.

Merton has commented on the competition and debate among different schools and systems in the same field. In his opinion, the argumentation and differentiation of theory or system in a discipline have positive functions, which can fully explain various problems and views and gradually integrate them into a larger theoretical system. At the same time, merton also objectively analyzed the impact of systematic and theoretical disputes on negative aspects. For example, stereotypes arise in such arguments, and these stereotypes naturally become fixed patterns. He said of the social sciences, "the sociologists of each side only observe the work of the other side selectively. The first thing they see in the study of the other side is the model of antagonism in response to the war. In the process, both parties become increasingly reluctant to study each other's work because the other's theory is totally wrong. This kind of situation will lead to the polarization of the theoretical research, so that the essentially not opposite but complementary theory becomes a system of irreconcilable differences.

For different disciplines, the degree of controversy and differentiation of theories and systems is different. The more developing but not perfect and mature subjects, the degree of system differentiation and debate is more serious. But this kind of differentiation and dispute is a necessary step for the discipline to become mature and scientific. The current development level of politics also determines the complexity and competitiveness of the discipline system, theory, but it is by no means the scientific evidence of this discipline, on the contrary, it marks the development and perfection of politics.

In the course of scientific development, the dispute between system and school will continue. When the debate over a problem is over, uniform rules and norms are firmly established. But this equilibrium of knowledge development will soon be broken, and it will be replaced by new ideas and new arguments. Thus, politics cannot avoid controversy in its own development, nor should it avoid it. The correct approach is to freely open discussion based on the actual situation of political life, and to bring political knowledge closer to the objective process of political life in normal academic debates.

要想成绩好，英国论文得写好，51due代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯，专业辅导，还为你提供专业英国essay代写，paper代写，report代写，需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due工作客服QQ：800020041或者Wechat：Abby0900吧。