Makes me think that perhaps one one to keep objective in the smoke and mirrors realm of politics is (if you can) by using math to model out stuff and make your desicions when it feels right to^1.Better than consistently sticking to the ideologies,assumptions of self-serving,puppet stringing and persuasion^2 (something really dangerous when running on emotion) that have been the common operating method for centuries and worth a try,I suppose.Whenever policy is made please,aside from considering obvious legal implementation,think about the health^3 of those NOT brought up in a policy main impact group.Esp.those for whom entering/getting involved in the realm of politics would take a lot of struggle very questionably feasible ^4
When I looked on a wiki page listing political scientists I'm surprised by the eclectic range of topics ppl had their education in (including a notable numbers of mathematicians in the fray) and not as many ppl from (overtly) humanities like cultural studies as I thought there'd be ^5
There's a difference btw political science and political theory,it seems.Like the differences btw Robert Axelrod and John Locke.Convergence is a fine thing tricky to assert.
Not all philosophers are cultural critics either. Keirkegaard had more to say on society than Descartes^6
^1 I say this b/c I can imagine to many a fool wanting to get things their way,having use
^2 Money,strong-arming,appeal to factions within,take you pick as to what you wanna say
^3 Better than saying "well-being" '~',ever overused?
^4 Ex's.the disabled,the very poor,expectant or recent parents add etc
^5 Is that/could that be a problem '~'
^6 and this is *just in the "West"* ..though with how "Eastern" philosophy has an arguably wider pervasiveness in regional societies b/c of the intense relationships/blurs it has w/regional religions..hmm `_`