Thanks for the link to the survey article!

Here is a recent survey article on experimental political science:

“The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science”, 2006, American Political Science Review
http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/APSRNov06Druckman_etal.pdf

It is clear from this survey that political “science” is not yet a true science, because empirical methods are not taken seriously, but there is a hopeful trend towards increased empirical research. The problem is not that politics refutes scientific method; the problem is that politicians and even many political “scientists” do not understand or accept scientific method. That is, the problem lies with the users, not with the tool.

I agree with you that our tools are not yet sophisticated enough – but it is _in_ science that new approaches are being developed (for instance, the study of complex systems), not in a non-scientific sphere.

So the problem is too little science/rationality – because being perfectly rational implies recognizing the poverty of current methods of analysis for some areas and the development of more apt ones.

We have to give processes their due time: when a problem is seen (for instance ecological crisis) it takes time (sometimes decades) to address these issues. We need patience and perseverance.

Obviously agree that rationality is lacking in public discourse. However, I think it must be said that the scientific method such as it is today is not very effective in terms of dealing with the complexities of human life, including politics, economics, and the problems of society at large. Reductionism – the philosophy behind science’s most successful means of knowledge creation – is great for tightly-focused technical problems that lend themselves to isolating parts, but our tools for holistic analysis are comparatively weak.

Another way to say this is that if the tools of science *were* effective in these large, complex domains, the knowledge that would arise from these investigations would be taken much more seriously. Take global warming – it’s hard to have rational discourse on this when there is controversy within the scientific community itself about the strength of scientific claims that underly arguments on both sides of the issue. That controversy exists because our tools just aren’t good enough to produce knowledge we can have confidence in.