The Political Scientist and Popular Political Fallacies
| Author | Robert L. Morlan |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591296802100301 |
| Published date | 01 September 1968 |
| Date | 01 September 1968 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
377
THE
POLITICAL
SCIENTIST
AND
POPULAR
POLITICAL
FALLACIES
ROBERT
L.
MORLAN
University
of
Redlands
NOTE:
Presidential
address,
Western
Political
Science
Association,
Seattle,
Washington,
March
22,
1968.
T
IS
ALWAYS
difficult
to
speak
with
proper
judicial
balance
concerning
either
~
an
institution
or a
profession
with
which
one
is
deeply
identified.
One
is
some-
-iL
what
in
the
position
of
the
monk
at
an
obscure
monastery
in
France,
who
was
showing
a
visitor
from
the
United
States
about
and
endeavoring
to
explain
with
due
modesty
the
characteristics
of
his
order.
&dquo;We’re
not
as
famous
for
our
scholar-
ship
as
the
Jesuits,&dquo;
he
said
rather
haltingly,
&dquo;or
as
the
Trappists
for
our
silence
and
good
works
-
but,
when
it
comes
to
humility,
we’re
the
tops.&dquo;
I
do
not
happen
to
be
one
of
those
who
views
Political
Science
as
being
in
quite
such
a
low
estate
as
some
of
our
colleagues
are
fond
of
doing,
but
no
doubt
all
of
us
have
certain
goals,
approaches,
or
emphases
we
would
wish
to
see
given
greater
attention.
It
would
be
my
contention
that
political
scientists
know
a
great
deal
more
about
political
behavior,
motivations,
processes,
etc.,
than
the
public
has
any
real
awareness
of,
or
than
we
ourselves
commonly
concede.
We,
of
course,
are
the
most
conscious
of
the
shortcomings;
of
the
unexplored
or
inadequately
explored
vistas.
But
we
have
gone
to
extremes
in
selling
ourselves
and
our
profession
short.
Collec-
tively
we
possess
a
notable
fund
of
information
and
potential
for
the
guidance
of
public
action,
often
more
appreciated
by
knowledgeable
persons
outside
the
pro-
fession
than
within
it.
It
is
surely
not
perfect,
nor
unchanging
-
but
neither
are
the
current
positions
of
the
physicists.
Both
may
be
feasible
bases
of
action
at
least
until
more
advanced
investigation
results
in
modifications
that
are
persuasive
as
a
slightly
closer
approximation
of
ultimate
truth.
If
we
are
to
await
perfection
before
seriously
advancing
our
ideas,
it
is
likely
to
be
a
long
wait,
and
none
of
us
really
operates
on
that
principle
in
practice.
It
is
no
derogation
of
the
obvious
need
for
continuing
and
greatly
improved
research
to
suggest
that
we
do
a
better
job
of
teaching,
in
the
very
broad
context
I
have
implied.
One
small
facet
is
my
concern
today.
We
whose
professional
lives
are
devoted
to
study,
teaching,
and
writing
about
politics
commonly
agree
that
one
of
our
purposes
is
helping
those
whom
we
reach
to
achieve
a
greater
depth
and
realism
of
understanding
of
political
processes
and
behavior.
I
would
argue
that
one
of
the
too
frequently
neglected
ways
of
advancing
this
social
realism
about
politics
lies
in
each
of
us
assuming
responsibility,
both
in
our
teaching
and
in
public
utterances,
for
demolishing
wherever
possible
some
of
the
multitude
of
popular
fallacies
that
so
permeate
American
thinking
in
this
field.
It
is
of
course
obvious
that
there
will
not
be
universal
agreement
among
us
about
the
nature
of
these
fallacies,
yet
I
suspect
that
a
remarkably
high
degree
of
such
agreement
is
perfectly
possible.
In
any
case
each
individual
will
be
guided
by
his
own
wisdom
and
understanding.
It
is,
after
all,
one
of
the
obligations
of
a
pro-
fessor
to
profess
his
beliefs,
hopefully
arrived
at
through
serious
thought
and
the
To continue reading
Request your trial