Jeffery Flake is a congressman from Arizona, and politically, he is socially and

Question

Jeffery Flake is a congressman from Arizona, and politically, he is socially and fiscally conservative. He also has a Ph.D in political science. He proposed a bill in May 2012 to cut federal funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF), which funds scientific research at most Universities. It didn't pass.

Flake's next bill did pass, though. It will cut funding to political science investigations "into the biological roots of political ideology." This research began in 1950s and paints an unflattering portrait of conservative politicians.

Jesse Graham has a Ph.D. in this field of political science and stands to lose his funding. In his article, "Political Instincts: Your Place on the conservative-liberal spectrum is largely decided by your biology. Whether you buy that might be too." New Scientist, 3 November, 2012--Graham describes his work as exploring "stable dimensions of personality."


Dr. Flake argued that Graham's field is pseudo-science, and he cited observational studies to show Graham and his colleagues are hostile to conservative causes. Flake's main argument for denying funding to this field in political science is that (1) its scientists are hostile to political diversity and that (2) it is not science.

Review the premises below and decide which premises, if true, strengthen Dr. Flake's argument (that this field is pseudo science) and which weaken it. Consider each premise separately.

For the following, decide if the statement either: if true, weakens; or, if true, strengthens.

1. Researchers in this field tend to ignore anomalies. For instance, they tend to ignore or explain away cases of conservative politicians who are tolerant of diverse constituents, who welcome immigrants, and who support a more equal economic playing field

2. Researchers find correlations between activity in regions of the brain and specific types of political biases.

3. Theories in political science of personality are resistant to change--and are nearly the same as when the science began in 1950s.

4. The researchers in this field come from a diversity of political persuasions

5. The Flake amendment prohibits funding for NSF's political science programs, which funds National Election Studies designed to increase voter participation. This appears to be a conflict of interest.

6. The theories in political science tend to stay the same and do not change with new information.

Explanation / Answer

1. This premis is true and it strengthens Dr. Flkae’s argument about the particular research being a pseudo science as it ignores the diversity within the conservative politicians.

2. This premis if true weakens Dr. Flakes argument

3. This premis strengthens Dr. Flakes’ argument against cutting down the funding for research in Political Science

4. This statement weakens his argument

5. This statement strengthens Dr. Flakes’ position against the research funding as it argues that supporting the research institution would lead to conflict of interests and can have negative influence on voting behaviour of citizens.

6. This premis is true and it strength the argument as highlights that Political science research remains unchanged with the changing time and is therefore not worthy of being promoted

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse J
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.