Political science and politics are two completely different things; some progress has been made in organizing the facts and inferences of political economy, but politics remains just a chaos of party biases and personal criticisms. Nevertheless, there is no reason not to guide political work, the state’s course, scientifically as much as directing a scientific exploratory journey like the one that recently sailed through the Northeast Passage. Professor Nordenskiöld’s achievement is one of the most magnificent examples of scientific prediction based on verified data that we know, and we recommend it for consideration by Sir William Harcourt when he thinks about participating in another political campaign. Sir William has succeeded in gaining a strong understanding of the true nature of the scientific method, and he has applied it wisely and effectively in his recent speech in Birmingham, and we advise him to follow this path with genuine seriousness. He seems to fully understand the scientific research method and scientific prediction, and he has presented it brilliantly, although only in sports and to ridicule his opponents, and we believe that science has lost its successful factor in him. We can overlook this loss if Sir William will seek to rescue politics from its current declining state as just a stage for party conflict and elevate it to something resembling the science of national life and progress. He must have made significant efforts to gain his knowledge in the manner and uses of marine data, and we can move past his natural error in editing it. Regarding the validity of his application of the marine data method in preparing alternative conservative data “after a careful inference from the behavior of the Tory government,” we have nothing to do here; it’s entertaining intelligence. With the following statements, men of all parties can only agree:
Summary
Political science and politics are two completely different things; some progress has been made in organizing the facts and inferences of political economy, but politics remains just a chaos of party biases and personal criticisms. Nevertheless, there is no reason not to guide political work, the state’s course, scientifically as much as directing a scientific exploratory journey like the one that recently sailed through the Northeast Passage. Professor Nordenskiöld’s achievement is one of the most magnificent examples of scientific prediction based on verified data that we know, and we recommend it for consideration by Sir William Harcourt when he thinks about participating in another political campaign. Sir William has succeeded in gaining a strong understanding of the true nature of the scientific method, and he has applied it wisely and effectively in his recent speech in Birmingham, and we advise him to follow this path with genuine seriousness. He seems to fully understand the scientific research method and scientific prediction, and he has presented it brilliantly, although only in sports and to ridicule his opponents, and we believe that science has lost its successful factor in him. We can overlook this loss if Sir William will seek to rescue politics from its current declining state as just a stage for party conflict and elevate it to something resembling the science of national life and progress. He must have made significant efforts to gain his knowledge in the manner and uses of marine data, and we can move past his natural error in editing it. Regarding the validity of his application of the marine data method in preparing alternative conservative data “after a careful inference from the behavior of the Tory government,” we have nothing to do here; it’s entertaining intelligence. With the following statements, men of all parties can only agree:
Summary
Political
Politics and policy are two completely different things; some progress has been made in organizing the facts and inferences of political economy, but politics remains merely a mess of party biases and personal criticisms. However, there is no reason not to direct political work, the state’s operation, in a scientific manner just as much as directing a scientific exploratory voyage like the one that recently sailed through the Northeast Passage. Professor Nordenskiöld’s achievement is one of the most remarkable examples of scientific prediction based on proven data that we know, and we recommend it for consideration by Sir William Harcourt when he thinks about participating in another political campaign. Sir William has succeeded in gaining a strong understanding of the true nature of the scientific method, and he has applied it smartly and well in his recent speech in Birmingham; we advise him to seriously follow this path. He appears to fully understand the method of scientific research and scientific prediction, and he has presented it brilliantly, albeit just in sports and to mock his opponents, and we believe that science has lost a successful factor in him. We can concede this loss if Sir William seeks to save politics from its current deteriorating state as a wound of party conflict and elevate it to something resembling the science of national life and progress. He must have made great efforts to gain knowledge in the manner and uses of marine data, and we can overlook his natural mistake in editing it. As for the validity of his application of the marine data method in preparing alternative conservative data “after a careful inference from the behavior of the Tory government,” we have nothing to do here; it is entertaining intelligence. Along with the following statements, men of all parties can only agree:
Summary
Political science and politics are two completely different things; some progress has been made in organizing the facts and inferences of political economy, but politics remains merely a mess of party biases and personal criticisms. However, there is no reason not to direct political work, the state’s operation, in a scientific manner just as much as directing a scientific exploratory voyage like the one that recently sailed through the Northeast Passage. Professor Nordenskiöld’s achievement is one of the most remarkable examples of scientific prediction based on proven data that we know, and we recommend it for consideration by Sir William Harcourt when he thinks about participating in another political campaign. Sir William has succeeded in gaining a strong understanding of the true nature of the scientific method, and he has applied it smartly and well in his recent speech in Birmingham; we advise him to seriously follow this path. He appears to fully understand the method of scientific research and scientific prediction, and he has presented it brilliantly, albeit just in sports and to mock his opponents, and we believe that science has lost a successful factor in him. We can concede this loss if Sir William seeks to save politics from its current deteriorating state as a wound of party conflict and elevate it to something resembling the science of national life and progress. He must have made great efforts to gain knowledge in the manner and uses of marine data, and we can overlook his natural mistake in editing it. As for the validity of his application of the marine data method in preparing alternative conservative data “after a careful inference from the behavior of the Tory government,” we have nothing to do here; it is entertaining intelligence. Along with the following statements, men of all parties can only agree:
Summary
The science of politics and politics are two completely different things;
Politics and policy are two entirely different things; some progress has been made in organizing the facts and inferences of political economy, but politics still remains just a chaos of partisan biases and personal criticisms. However, there is no reason not to direct political work, the governance of the state, in a scientific manner just as much as directing a scientific expedition like the one that recently sailed through the Northeast Passage. Professor Nordenskiöld’s achievement is one of the most remarkable examples of scientific prediction based on proven data that we know, and we recommend it for consideration by Sir William Harcourt when thinking about engaging in another political campaign. Sir William has succeeded in gaining a strong understanding of the true nature of the scientific method, and he has applied it smartly and well in his recent speech in Birmingham, and we advise him to seriously follow this path. He seems to fully understand the method of scientific research and scientific prediction, and he presented it brilliantly, albeit only in the realm of sports and to mock his opponents; we believe science has lost its successful factor in that regard. We can overlook this loss if Sir William seeks to save politics from its current deteriorating status as a battleground for party conflict, and elevate it to something resembling the science of national life and progress. He must have made significant efforts to acquire his knowledge of marine data and its uses, and we can move past his natural error in its manipulation. As for the validity of his application of the marine data method in preparing alternative conservative data “after a careful deduction from the behavior of the Tory government,” we have nothing to do here; it’s entertaining intelligence. With the following statements, men from all parties can only agree:
Leave a Reply