1. Course Introduction

2. Course Expectations/Assignments

3. Course Policies

4. Questions

1. Science cannot resolve questions of value (good vs. bad, desirable vs. undesirable). It cannot tell us what we should do.

2. Science can answer questions about what is happening in the world, what are the causes of some outcome or consequences of some action.

• Does this make a science of politics valuable to us today?

Climate Change and its consequences

Immigration

Inequality

Interstate War

Perils of Social Media, AI, new technology

And in the face of these challenges, fears that democracy is under threat

Maybe…

Science’s value is in helping us to be rational in responding to these crises

• Is there a problem? Is it a new problem?
• If we, e.g., want to reduce CO\(_2\) emissions, what policies will work?

But, if science is value neutral…

How can it help us when people disagree, sometimes violently, about values?

How can we stop science from being a tool of domination and oppression?

How can science grapple with values that are thrust upon us by parents, schools, states?

To understand the value of science in politics, need to think about what politics is about:

Power

… is the capacity of A to motivate B to think or do something that B would otherwise not have thought or done.

Power involves justification: giving some reason that combines stories (“facts”) about the world with values to tell us what is wrong in the world and how to fix it (or what is good in the world that need protecting).

We receive and accept justifications, implicitly and explicitly, all the time:

What distinguishes a good justification (to act a certain way) versus a poor justification?

• Consider Residential Schools
• Justifications were abundant and rich in detail.

One intuitive way to recognize poor justifications is through the following principle:

“the acceptance of a justification does not count if the acceptance itself is produced by the coercive power which is supposedly being justified.”

• Residential schools coercively took children into an educational program aimed at providing justifications for that very coercion.
• It also removed children from the perspectives and voices of their communities

We cannot abolish power, but are we entitled to good justification?

If you want to be given good justifications for the power exercised over you, it is only reasonable that we give good justifications for power exercised over others.

What is the connection between values and science? And what is the value of science to us today?

It comes through the connection between science and justifications of power.

At a meta level, the central claims of this course are:

\(1.\) Interrogating poor justifications requires science.

Only science gives us principles and tools to interrogate — independent of those exercising power:

• are the claims about what is happening or what has happened that are used to invoke specific values and to justify the exercise of power correct?
• are the claims about why the world is at is (what is the problem?) correct?
• are the claims about what actions will “fix the problem” correct?
• how are justifications for power shared in the world? how is power used to persuade people of its own justifications?

At a meta level, the central claims of this course are:

\(2.\) Scientific inquiry cannot proceed in contexts of domination:

• When power is used to secure its own justification, it suppresses incompatible facts and holds certain claims above independent scrutiny.

At a meta level, the central claims of this course are:

\(3.\) Principles of good scientific inquiry map onto principles of good justification.

“the acceptance of a justification does not count if the acceptance itself is produced by the coercive power which is supposedly being justified.”

“One does not have evidence for a claim if nothing has been done to rule out ways the claim may be false. If data \(x\) agree with a claim \(C\) but the method used is practically guaranteed to find such agreement, and had little or no capability of finding flaws with \(C\) even if they exist, then we have bad evidence, no test.”

Themes

How are justifications related to power?

What kinds of claims are embedded in justifications for power? How can we recognize them?

What is science and scientific evidence?

How can science help us interrogate justifications?

Themes

Justifications involve claims about what is the state of the world, why it is that way, and about the values we should use to judge the world.

Science is fundamentally about keeping assumptions open to challenge and scrutinizing the ways in which claims may be wrong.

Practically, we learn:

How do justifications use descriptive and causal claims about the world?

What are the ways in which evidence for descriptive and causal claims may yield incorrect answers? How do we recognize them?

A note

Examples used in class

• Unfortunately, US elections are probably globally consequential.
• Values inform questions

Why take this course?

• A requirement for the political science major; probably useful.
• A civics lesson for citizens of the world: how to think critically about the power exercised over us (and the evidence used to justify or question that power)

Speaking of exercising power over others…

• Thanks, OpenAI.
• Don’t train LLMs to take your (future) job.
• LLMs useful tools, but won’t cultivate critical thinking.

1. Assignment 1: September 27
2. Assignment 2: October 18
3. Midterm Exam: October 30
4. Assignment 3: November 22
5. Assignment 4: December 4
6. Final Exam: TBD

\(\bullet\) Apply key concepts to your choice of current events

\(\bullet\) Available on Canvas 1 week prior to due date @ 9AM

\(\bullet\) 1 week to complete/upload to Canvas

practice your understanding of course material, before exams

\(\bullet\) Ask and answer question about real problem facing students

\(\bullet\) Develop, Analyze, Interpret survey questions

\(\bullet\) Work in 5-6 person groups from tutorial

\(\bullet\) Write memo with incremental deadlines

\(\bullet\) Overall grade multiplied by personal contribution

work with others on your understanding of course material, before exams

\(\bullet\) October 30 in class

\(\bullet\) Covers materials from weeks 1 to 8

\(\bullet\) Zoom / Tutorial Review session(s) AND lists of key terms/example questions

\(\bullet\) Date TBD

\(\bullet\) Cumulative over entire course, but emphasizes weeks 8 to 14.

\(\bullet\) Review session and key terms/example questions

\(\bullet\) TAs (except for group memo)

\(\bullet\) Rubrics

\(\bullet\) Validation

\(\bullet\) No expected distribution

\(\bullet\) Attend lecture:

• slides are not enough; reading is not enough; take thoughtful notes (not transcription)

\(\bullet\) Attend Tutorial

• Starts in week 2
• Participate in group activity (survey writing)

\(\bullet\) Read

\(\bullet\) Canvas

\(\bullet\) List of concepts/Review

\(\bullet\) Slides/Lectures

\(\bullet\) Speed

\(\bullet\) Discussion/Questions/Examples

Missed Exam/ Late Assignments:

\(\bullet\) Scheduling Conflict

• Only applies to exams. Notify me in advance.

\(\bullet\) Unforeseen Events

• midterms, assignments in other courses are not “unforeseen”
• Contact professor: concessions can be prospective/retroactive
• May direct you to Arts Advising concession

\(\bullet\) Lateness

• non-catastrophic deduction (5% deduction after every 24 hours)
• maximum penalty of 30% (after one week), but delayed grading

Late Policy:

Reasons:

1. Responsibility
2. Equity
3. Learning

\(\bullet\) formal written letter

\(\bullet\) To your TA

\(\bullet\) after 48 hours waiting period

\(\bullet\) Grades can change \(\Updownarrow\)

\(\bullet\) No participation without attendance

\(\bullet\) Late group project deadlines \(\to\) half participation

\(\bullet\) Make up absences/holidays by attending another Tutorial

\(\bullet\) Excused absences require official concession

• up to 2 missed tutorials without concession (best 10 out of 12)

Monday after lecture