overcrowded smuggle tape …

Student: Ms Larkin, do you know who Pat Robertson is?
Me: …yes. He's a well-known… preacher. Why do you ask?
Him: I took a test online that said the Christian leader I'm most like is him! What do you think of him?
Me: Well, many of his views are… controversial. He has said… some very hateful things. About… groups of people.
Student: Like what?
Me: Oh, various groups. He has a very specific set of beliefs about how people should behave.
Student: Oh, ok. Cool. [wanders off]
Me: I cannot believe I just survived that conversation.

You're right on the money in claiming that injecting such "objectivity" into things like philosophy and political science leads inexorably toward a bland but dangerous subjectivism. Where all theories are allowed equal footing, qualities such as morality and judgment cease to have meaning. And while it may be an interesting exercise to try to divorce yourself wholly from the subjects you study, it does a disservice to critical thinking if such a practice is perpetuated as the only "correct" form of academic analysis.

On the other hand, there is a camp of radical social scientists that, through the device of histrionics, claims that no substantive objectivity is possible. In this instance, the aim seems to be in undercutting the perceived biases of establishment interpretations of the social sciences. Unfortunately, this vein of reasoning, although well intentioned, frequently ends one back up in the realm of subjectivism. I tend to side with this group however, as it at least allows for opinions and inductive (rather than deductive) conclusions about the social sciences.

There has always been a conflict over the purpose and aim of the Humanities, and while both sides have a few good arguments at their disposal, it really comes down to a matter of what length you are willing to go to to prove your objectivity on subjects that can never be fully impersonal. Cultural consensus tends to be the ultimate arbiter of the merits of the works and ideas of the Humanities, whether it turns out that the dominant ideas of a culture are correct or not.

It should be noted that the most popular and influential works of the social sciences tend to be in no way objective, while the most objective and scholarly works go largely unnoticed and forgotten by society. Because of this, I tend to view the social sciences as a reflection of society rather than view the social sciences as a "guiding light" of society or some such nonsense. From what we know of history, its very near conclusive that people adopt sociological ideas and practices as they become convenient and useful.

I may be running into a chicken and egg argument by saying that, but I think that's the way things almost invariably go.

I say there's room in political science, and philosophy for one's opinions. To be frank, I think opinions matter more in these areas than the cataloging and parsing that dominate academic circles.

Hmm. That's probably a little more explanation than was necessary to show that I agree with your opinion, Ed!