Week 1 Discussion — Is Political Science a Science? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
A chemist can repeat an experiment a thousand times; a political scientist studying a revolution gets one revolution. This week you learned the field's toolkit and its central distinction between empirical and normative claims, and that raises a question political scientists still argue about among themselves.
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: Is political science a science? Take a position, support it with at least one reason drawn from this week's ideas (checkable claims, rules of evidence, the comparative method, or the empirical/normative distinction), and then state the strongest case for the other side as fairly as its best defender would. What would change your mind?
Option B: Pick one question you care about from your campus, workplace, or community (not a current election, candidate, or officeholder). Is it mainly empirical, mainly normative, or both? Argue whether political science's methods could answer it, and say what your answer suggests about whether the field deserves the name science.
There is no single right answer here. Proponents and critics both have strong arguments, and the same question can look scientific from one angle and philosophical from another. Pick the option you actually care about, and make your case.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- For Option A, state your position on whether political science is a science, give at least one reason from this week's ideas, and state the strongest case for the other side; for Option B, name your question, sort it as mainly empirical, mainly normative, or both, and argue whether the field's methods could answer it.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (empirical claim, normative claim, political science, comparative method, smuggling, shrugging) correctly.
- Say what evidence or argument would change your mind.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
- Write from your own reasoning, in your own words, and keep living politicians and current campaigns out of your examples.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: state a stronger version of the side the poster argued against, point out a claim sorted by its topic instead of its kind, or ask what evidence would test the poster's position. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option A, and I lean toward calling political science a science. My reason is that its empirical claims can be checked and found false; two researchers who disagree about what a town ought to do can still agree on what its vote count shows. The strongest case on the other side is that people change how they act when they are studied, and many political events happen only once, so there are too few cases to test an explanation the way a lab would. I would change my mind if the field's checkable findings turned out to be rare compared with its value arguments.
Notice how it takes a position, gives a reason from the week, states the other side at full strength, and names what would change the writer's mind. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Full credit | Partial credit | No credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | A clear position with at least one reason tied to this week's ideas, the other side stated at its strongest, and a statement of what would change the writer's mind | A position is present, but the reason is vague or the other side is weakened into a strawman | Missing, off-topic, or no reasoning about the question |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses empirical claim and normative claim precisely, sorting by kind rather than topic, and uses at least one other term from the toolkit correctly | Uses a term loosely, or treats empirical as a synonym for true | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that extend or challenge a classmate's reasoning | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com