- Jul 04 Mon 2016 10:57
- Jun 24 Fri 2016 10:56
- May 27 Wed 2015 14:29
- Dec 09 Sat 2017 01:25
- Nov 12 Sun 2017 10:29
What does it means success for the peacekeeping?
- People stop dying: civilian, soldiers
Ex: Generally the government soldiers die less, the civilian are die most, cause they are attacked by both parties in war
- A little bit of political openness; measured by the PolityIV(no extreme authoritarian regime, from 3 to 10)
- Stable supply for electricity
Appealà sanctionà mediation/peacekeeping
- Sep 27 Wed 2017 05:14
- Jul 27 Thu 2017 05:00
- Jul 21 Fri 2017 06:00
- Jul 10 Mon 2017 08:05
- Jul 05 Wed 2017 02:32
- Jul 05 Wed 2017 01:41
Japanese Gardenàgood place to take photos
Formerly Buffalo & Erie County Historical Society Museum
1 Museum Court, Buffalo, NY
Next to Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society
1 Museum Court, (formerly 25 Nottingham Court), Buffalo, NY 14216
- Jul 05 Wed 2017 01:38
- Jul 05 Wed 2017 01:11
- Jul 05 Wed 2017 00:45
- Jun 16 Fri 2017 06:27
- Jan 31 Tue 2017 23:28
- Oct 15 Sat 2016 03:51
You think they are very helpful, but they are not
*Website is not good. It’s very fancy, but you cannot actually submit anything. I tried to submit my referral document,
*Every customer service agent tells you different stories.
- Oct 15 Sat 2016 03:43
首先，先把自己的身高(尺)、體重(磅)、過敏藥物名稱、之前過敏狀況、之前開刀或大手術的情形、每個月經期日期、家庭病史、緊急聯繫人名字電話和地址等全部都寫成英文準備好，因為你會不停的需要重複這些資訊，即便是幫你做超音波檢查的醫師= = 理論上，幫你做超音波檢查的醫師不會開藥，但是他們還是會要你把這些資訊全部跟他說一次。
- Oct 03 Mon 2016 21:43
In Lakatos’s description, the theory cannot be refuted by one attempt, there is a protective belt for it. It seems to make the theory more stable but leave other questions unanswered. For example, how to define the hard core from the protection belt? Would people in the same research discipline acknowledge the same hard core? Why hard core cannot be challenged?
What is the hard core of democratic theory? People may have different arguments. Some people claim the hard core is representative of the institutions, like Schumpeter. For others, the democracy is about the protection of freedom, like Miller. For the protection belt, the first group may work on the election system to make a number of votes received equal to the number of seats gained, while the other group would try to refine the judicial system to avoid human rights being violated. The election system and judicial system could also serve as a protection belt for each other’s hard core. It seems like Lakatos’s methodology is not very clear on an operational basis. Like the example, he gave in the book, why Prout’s studies could remain a hard core with so many refutations?
Hard core is different from the paradigm, but they are very similar in practices. To Kuhn, a paradigm is a religious belief, but for Lakatos, hard core is the key element of a research program. The problem is how do we use Lakatos’ idea to determine if the science is in progress or degenerate, which sounds simple in Kuhn’s world since we only talk about whether or not to find a replacement. For Lakatos, every hard core could still survive even if it lost its protective belt. If we want to determine whether or not there is progress in this research domain, we need to pinpoint what the hard core is. Defining hard core is much more difficult than defining paradigm. Though paradigm isn’t clearly defined in Kuhn’s literature, it could be understood as a vague idea by the scholars in their own field. Instead, how do we define the shift of hard core if we couldn’t define the hard core? And if all auxiliary hypotheses are rejected, should we abandon this hard core? Or is it a real hard core?
- Oct 03 Mon 2016 21:37
Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics
Geddes’s piece of work spoke to my heart, I do feel the engine of doing research is out of my curiosity rather than data. But as a freshman in academia, I disagree on how the research process starts. Realistically speaking, without proper data, it’s very difficult to prove my perception of how things work. There is a huge gap between concepts and operational index. For instance, how to indicate a country had transformed from a totalitarian country to a democratic country. There are different types of the index of regime type: freedom house, Polity IV, and etc.. Our current interest is not included in existing database by focusing more on democratic accountability. However, this index exists for a long time, and is established and maintained by prestige research centers. Even if we create our own database, the main obstacle is to convince other why this is much better after sorting out the fund of setting up a database. Therefore, with existing database, the nuanced difference in our theory is not quite obvious.
Though "(multiple regression)is not always a good image to have in mind when trying to explain something complicated" sound plausible in content, it does not provide a better way to build the link between causal factors. I believe people usually have an initial theory in mind, but we tend to add on more and more variables ad hoc to explain the uncovered places. This is the hardest task in comparative studies, cause some time we are not sure about the deviation of cases is insignificant to discard, the criteria just too vague and usually case by case. And it's actually quite useful to use multiple regression to think of the situation before you have a clearer image of how the causal factors work. Truly, this would easily lead into a dark corner when we doubting if all the necessary information had to be gathered to avoid a misreading of the phenomena.
- Sep 28 Wed 2016 23:38
- Sep 16 Fri 2016 10:50
Reaction paper: Introductory readings in the philosophy of science / edited by E.D. Klemke, Robert Hollinger, David Wÿss Rudge with A. David Kline
What a theory looks like? Many different opinions. The easiest one should be Hempel’s a scientific explanation should be explained by a D-N model. But just as Cartwright said, the covering law is scare. Sometimes, the explanation doesn’t derive from a Ceteris paribus law nor a covering law. For instance, why people should follow government’s rules? From a folk’s wisdom it may be, if you don’t follow it, you will go to jail. But from scholars, it’s a delegation problem. John Rawls use the concept of the veil of ignorance to explain that people should follow just rules. However, this concept of the veil of ignorance is not an observable term.
Even we put it in the theoretical category, it’s hard to say it can be tested or observed by using some tools. It’s a setting to makes people understand the world. And this is what the main goal of social science. Truly, as a social scientist, we face the problem of providing a theory which can explain some incidence very clearly but couldn’t provide a good predict. Just like Marxism. But that should be fine, cause as long as we accept that all the knowledge we knew is temporary true, these covering law is only temporary accurate.
Unlike natural science, one goal in social science is to develop the normative theory. It’s like the common goal of social science, what are we aiming for. This type of theory is a creation, we believe if our institution follows and fits this normative theory, then our society will be prospering and full of joy. But for this type of theory, there is no accurate law, only of what you are believing for. For instance, the veil of ignorance could help us deduct a just society. Under the situation that people have no knowledge of what their position, condition in the society might be, under the assumption that people will pursue their greatest interest, they will set up just laws in a case that they become the minority. This deduction is logical, but every item is uncertain. But we couldn’t explain this theory cause it’s not really possible to experience.
I agree that what we have to bear in mind is the question that leads us to find the answer and observe. From my point of view, researchers have a perspective way beyond the research. This perspective is subjective, but without it, there is no observation. Without the theory, it’s hard to say what should we observe. Theory is a set of assumptions, and we tried to prove it by empirical evidence. Theory could be wrong, but the resulting empirical data still useful and it’s the only way to accumulate knowledge. Cause without a category system, there is no knowledge. Right now, the disclosure of data is become a huge trend in government, but without a theory to organize and tailor the data, this data is just number which makes no meaning to other people.
- Sep 16 Fri 2016 10:46
<aim: any reaction when finish the reading; critics welcome>
Popper asserts that only the theory which can be falsified should be defined as science. In Popper’s definition, it seems like he doesn’t ask for a real “falsified” result, but the possibility of being falsified. However, falsify is hard in practices.
First of all, falsified research is not an important research until the research question is been proved and supported by other related materials or studies. For example, few researchers are researching “there is no life in Mars”, but looking for the evidence that “Mars could have some sign of life.” The first question doesn’t matter until the latter question is being verified in some way. I’m assuming the amount of people who indulged in the prior question will be less, and would be harder for them to get fund (it’s not what the society expected or interested.) Also, it’s severe for the falsified studies to prove themselves is a promising studies rather than some crazy nonsense. If the question doesn’t fit with the acknowledge of what society consider it’s important, few people may put on more effort to do this type of research, rather than theorize it. Even though, stepping back from Popper’s definition and embrace Thagard’s: to distinguish if this is a science that scholars need to make progress and to gain access to alternative theories. Without people and funding, it’s hard to say how they do research.
- Sep 09 Fri 2016 06:37
Political science is so much harder than physics.
We are dealing with people, with the worry that we may not get a job from it.
- We are awesome!!
How do we know things?
Is x always lead to y?
- Sep 04 Sun 2016 12:10
- Commercial immigration商業移民
- Non-immigrant: intent is not to immigrant
- Immigrant: intent is to become a permanent resident
F1: finish the degree, have one year OPT<engineer is extend to 2 yearsàcause H1B is harder to gain, so they extend the time to issue>
0401: start to issue the H1B visa
US immigration law: if you stay over the time of the visa time, then you automatically breach the law. 觸法
- Jul 14 Thu 2016 12:26
- Jul 05 Tue 2016 09:12
- Jul 04 Mon 2016 19:03
- Nov 24 Tue 2015 14:44
- Nov 24 Tue 2015 10:28