¹ See the Report of this Committee, Goals for Political Science (New York, 1951), pp. 126–127Google Scholar.

² (New Haven, 1950.)

³ “The Immediate Future of Research Policy and Method in Political Science,” this Review, Vol. 45, pp. 133–142 (March, 1951). Elsewhere, Lasswell states the very important point that political scientists must cease to confine their studies of causation and correlation to two-factor analysis and must be on the lookout for significant clusters of variables that tend to be related, in dynamic equilibrium, in some sort of organic whole. See Lasswell and Kaplan, op. cit., pp. xiv–xix, especially pp. xv, 8.

⁴ Some would go beyond assertion to an investigation of what values are in fact pursued. Cf. Lasswell, loc. cit., p. 134.

⁵ Op. cit., p. xiii. They also state that “political philosophy” includes both “political doctrine” and “logical analysis of both doctrine and science” (ibid., p. xi). Apparently then, political philosophy overlaps part of each of the “two distinct components” mentioned above, but this is not clear. In any case, they give no further attention to the logical analysis of doctrine.

⁶ Loc. cit., p. 134. In fairness, it should be pointed out that he does go on to state that “research-mindedness is essential if we are to reduce the ambiguity of our ultimate aspirations by translating them into concrete practices” (ibid.).

⁷ To be sure, the two may be treated in the same book—kept distinct but brought into relationship with each other in accordance with what Lasswell and Kaplan call “configurative analysis.” The writer has made such an attempt in Liberal Democracy—Its Merit and Prospects (New York, 1950)Google Scholar.

⁸ Op. cit., p. xiii.

⁹ “Theory of Valuation,” International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (Chicago, 1939), Vol. 2, No. 4, esp. Sec. 2Google Scholar. In another place Dewey remarks, about “tastes,” that far from not being subject to dispute, they are the only things worth disputing about, “if by ‘dispute’ is signified discussion involving reflective inquiry” (The Quest for Certainty [New York, 1929], p. 262)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ This is not to say that they should write for the practical politician. A book on political theory is no more likely to be widely read by the occupants of county court houses than a book on economic theory is to obtain currency among shopkeepers.

¹¹ Of course, it is not implied that there are not political philosophers with practical interests or practical political scientists with an appreciation for doctrine, but only that such individuals are the exception rather than the rule.