Comments on: Huh? http://registan.net/index.php/2009/10/26/huh/ All Central Asia, All The Time Fri, 25 May 2012 20:24:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Michael Hancock http://registan.net/index.php/2009/10/26/huh/comment-page-1/#comment-383210 Michael Hancock Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:57:01 +0000 http://www.registan.net/?p=9755#comment-383210 @brent: I agree with you now that my swipe at PS was uncalled for. After reading two hours of crap on the internet re: the Coburn amendment, I realize how little I know about the state of Political Science in the US and how little I care. Just call me a historian with a love of contemporary history. :) @brent: I agree with you now that my swipe at PS was uncalled for. After reading two hours of crap on the internet re: the Coburn amendment, I realize how little I know about the state of Political Science in the US and how little I care. Just call me a historian with a love of contemporary history. :)

]]> By: brent http://registan.net/index.php/2009/10/26/huh/comment-page-1/#comment-383206 brent Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:00:48 +0000 http://www.registan.net/?p=9755#comment-383206 Needless to say perhaps, but I strongly disagree. Finding generalizable patterns of social life is a worthwhile and even achievable goal. I don't want to get too off topic here, so I will refrain from launching a defense of scientific inquiry. But I should add that although I have academic disagreements with some other political scientists (and other social scientists) working on Central Asia, I would hardly compare their work to Robert Kaplan's. If you have some particularly sloppy political scientists in mind, why not call them out explicitly? After all, it is through the exchange of criticism that the quality of work improves. Needless to say perhaps, but I strongly disagree. Finding generalizable patterns of social life is a worthwhile and even achievable goal. I don’t want to get too off topic here, so I will refrain from launching a defense of scientific inquiry. But I should add that although I have academic disagreements with some other political scientists (and other social scientists) working on Central Asia, I would hardly compare their work to Robert Kaplan’s. If you have some particularly sloppy political scientists in mind, why not call them out explicitly? After all, it is through the exchange of criticism that the quality of work improves.

]]> By: Michael Hancock http://registan.net/index.php/2009/10/26/huh/comment-page-1/#comment-383205 Michael Hancock Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:28:38 +0000 http://www.registan.net/?p=9755#comment-383205 @brent:My apologies - Political Scientists are not bad people. I've been disillusioned with political science in the past, but my disillusionment is not proof for anyone. I've had some experience with Western-focused political scientists applying graphs, patterns, and equations to Central Asian situations and really misunderstanding the situation, in a Robert Kaplanesque way [i.e. comically inaccurate, but with enough buzz words to convince some people in power]. I'm aware of Senator Coburn's amendment, but I don't know enough about the subject to agree or disagree. I would argue that Political Science and the social sciences are making a mistake to ask for any inclusion or comparison with the hard sciences: Biology, Botany, Meteorology, Parasitology, etc. It would be much safer to sit tight with philosophy and history in the humanities. @brent:My apologies – Political Scientists are not bad people. I’ve been disillusioned with political science in the past, but my disillusionment is not proof for anyone. I’ve had some experience with Western-focused political scientists applying graphs, patterns, and equations to Central Asian situations and really misunderstanding the situation, in a Robert Kaplanesque way [i.e. comically inaccurate, but with enough buzz words to convince some people in power]. I’m aware of Senator Coburn’s amendment, but I don’t know enough about the subject to agree or disagree. I would argue that Political Science and the social sciences are making a mistake to ask for any inclusion or comparison with the hard sciences: Biology, Botany, Meteorology, Parasitology, etc. It would be much safer to sit tight with philosophy and history in the humanities.

]]> By: brent http://registan.net/index.php/2009/10/26/huh/comment-page-1/#comment-383201 brent Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:30:23 +0000 http://www.registan.net/?p=9755#comment-383201 What's up with uncalled for dig against political scientists. If you are going to make this claim, you need to reference whom you are talking about. The thing is very few political scientists engage in anything resembling prediction: most are concerned only with explaining events post facto. In fact, maybe too much so. The big exception that you may be referencing, Bueno de Mesquita, is hardly mainstream and even he separates his empirical academic work from his predictions, most of which are made through contracting work with organizations such as the CIA. Maybe I am little sensitive about this now, but your use of quotes around "science" directly references Senator Coburn's amendment to cut NSF funding for Political Science (currently under discussion in the Senate). What’s up with uncalled for dig against political scientists. If you are going to make this claim, you need to reference whom you are talking about. The thing is very few political scientists engage in anything resembling prediction: most are concerned only with explaining events post facto. In fact, maybe too much so. The big exception that you may be referencing, Bueno de Mesquita, is hardly mainstream and even he separates his empirical academic work from his predictions, most of which are made through contracting work with organizations such as the CIA. Maybe I am little sensitive about this now, but your use of quotes around “science” directly references Senator Coburn’s amendment to cut NSF funding for Political Science (currently under discussion in the Senate).

]]> By: Asher Kohn http://registan.net/index.php/2009/10/26/huh/comment-page-1/#comment-383193 Asher Kohn Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:09:01 +0000 http://www.registan.net/?p=9755#comment-383193 Dushanbe's may be bigger, but is it going to have the quote "The Koran is God's book, the Ruhnama is the holy book" on it (in Turkmen, no less)? I think not. The architecture of the Dushanbe mosque is interesting, though. The Turkmenbashi mosque is designed to look just like the palace, the university, and really everything else in downtown Ashgabat...even though the mosque IN downtown Ashgabat is the decidedly Ottoman Ertugrul Gazi Mosque. This one in Dushanbe looks much more like the Registan complex than anything else. I wonder if that's to hearken back to Timur's Golden Age or if it is much more explicitly Uzbek than that. Even if it's funded by Qataris. Dushanbe’s may be bigger, but is it going to have the quote “The Koran is God’s book, the Ruhnama is the holy book” on it (in Turkmen, no less)? I think not.

The architecture of the Dushanbe mosque is interesting, though. The Turkmenbashi mosque is designed to look just like the palace, the university, and really everything else in downtown Ashgabat…even though the mosque IN downtown Ashgabat is the decidedly Ottoman Ertugrul Gazi Mosque. This one in Dushanbe looks much more like the Registan complex than anything else. I wonder if that’s to hearken back to Timur’s Golden Age or if it is much more explicitly Uzbek than that. Even if it’s funded by Qataris.

]]>