Aristotle constructs a system of political science. However, the question is raised: is does his political science match his definition of science? To answer this question, we must understand both his definition of political science as well as his meaning of "science." After closer examination of these topics, I feel that Aristotle's "political science" does meet the definition of science, but occasionally falls short of being a true science.
Aristotle bases science upon the search for causes and the study of form and matter. As a reaction to Plato's Forms, he says that form is not and intangible concept in some unknown metaverse, but that it is the summation of an object's causes. Every object has four causes: material cause (what is it made up of?), efficient cause (what created it?), formal cause (what is it right now?), and final cause (what is it supposed to do?). By having an answer to these questions, not only is the question of matter incorporated into the form (a concession to the Presocratics and a reflection of Aristotle's empiricism), but also the object exists outside of its material make up. When is a limp of bronze no longer a lump of bronze, but a statue? The efficient cause will be "bronze" for both the lump and the statue. But, when the efficient cause changes from "it was found in ore" to "a sculptor made it," the formal cause becomes "a statue" as opposed to "a lump of bronze," and the final cause is also "a statue" instead of "a lump of bronze," it is easy to see the differences. Under this system, Aristotle is able to solve many of the inconsistencies on Plato's work.
Aristotle divides the sciences into three categories: practical, productive and theoretical. A productive science is one that is concerned with producing an end result, such as alchemy. Theoretical sciences are concerned with systems that are isolated, those that have the ability to move and stop, and to exist, contained within them. The natural sciences are theoretical. All sciences are concerned with the cause and effect systems of what they study (Aristotle uses the word "genus" to describe an area of study). Aristotle considers political science to be a practical science.
Aristotle also corrects previous scientists in the area of existence. Aristotle believes that something can come into existence from nothing, but only with qualification. On the other hand, something that develops from something else is said to exist without qualification. In either event, a change is a matter of an object losing one attribute and gaining another, and the attributes are opposites. For example, a qualified change would the lump of bronze being made into the statue. Although both the bronze and the statue have attributes, they are not in opposition to each other, and the change did not occur by adjusting the levels of those attributes. An unqualified coming into being could be someone putting on weight. They have lost the attribute of thinness, and gained the attribute of obesity.
Political science, then, is a combination of two areas of study: ethics and political philosophy. Aristotle's political philosophy is contained within Politics. His political science is very much so based upon his experiences and observations. Numerous examples from Aristotle's lifetime and history are presented to help make his case. In the regard of having the proper facts available, I think that Aristotle has done a thorough job in finding factual evidence for his thoughts. When he cannot find a proper example that actually existed, he often thinks of a good example. In this regard, I feel that he is not scientifically rigorous according to his own definitions. If Aristotle is to place such a hefty premium on observation, it is not a good tactic for him to state things without facts based upon experience.
Aristotle also discuses the four causes of politics. He states that's the four causes are: the lawmakers who form the constitution in the beginning (efficient cause), the citizens of the city-state (material cause), the constitution itself (formal cause), and the goals of the city-state itself (final cause). The constitution is regarding as a summation of the laws, traditions, customs, etc. of the people, and so it does play an integral role in the final cause. One flaw with this explanation is that although the constitution defines what a city-state is, it does not seem to provide any impetus towards the final cause.
A more serious problem lies within Aristotle's conception of the citizens. The citizens can be broken down into their form and matter. The matter of the citizens is people. The people can be broken down further. Let it suffice to say that in essence, because people are political animals, it is their final cause to become citizens. However, they cannot become citizens without a city-state. Aristotle has created a circular argument here: citizens require a city-state, but a city-state requires citizens. However, this flaw is reason on Aristotle's part does not preclude the fact that he has followed his scientific methodology.
I feel that Aristotle has met the requirements of a science, but has made some mistakes. He does concern himself with the form and matter of politics, and he describes the study of form and matter to be what science is. In addition, I feel that his political science specifically meets the requirements of a practical philosophy. Unlike a productive science, Aristotle's political science will never become a method of creation or change. Aristotle himself admits that many of his ideal circumstances are not possible. The larger problem I that politics will never be subject to the observation that he feels is necessary for a science. Politics is a completely subjective study, and so must involve a certain amount of reason. In addition, politics is caused and created by the masses, which cannot be properly observed by anyone, for they are too large and complicated. Although a mass action is simple to understand, its development is usually too complex to be fully grasped. Because a science requires full understanding of causes, Aristotle's political science cannot be a science in this regard.
However, unlike a theoretical science, political science is based upon systems that must interact with each other. The city-state is made up of citizens, who are made up of people, and suddenly we are in the realm of biology, or geology, or some other science. I feel that Aristotle's major shortcoming is that he has not paid enough attention to his own principles of coming into being. I think he makes mistakes in the category, and I think that the existence of politics is something that cannot be explained. In that sense, political science is not a true science.
I have loved working with computers since I was a kid. I specialized in software development, but I also do a lot of systems administration and some network engineering. Currently, my development interests are in C#, parallel processing, and exploring business usage of dynamic and functional languages. In addition to my day job, I write for TechRepublic, primarily in the "Programming and Development" area, and ForMortals. I am currently (when time permits) working on a book that aims to teach new developers everything about how to write software, other than how to program in and of itself. In addition, I do a bit of software development under the banner of my own company, Titanium Crowbar Industries
I love learning about history and philosophy (I doubled majored in those subjects in college) as well. The essays on this site regarding those topics were all written by me in college and high school. I also am extremely interested in physical fitness, and devote a substantial amount of my time to weight lifting. I am currently focusing on lifting heavy weights and I have participated in a few powerlifting meets. Currently, my non-technical readings have focused on various religious ideas and fitness. I am a big fan of Phillip K. Dick and Frank Herbert, and both of those authors have shaped my worldview greatly.
You can also find me on Facebook.