Reference no: EM132522078

The traditional political science definition is based off of previous acts from individuals within government. As explained in the textbook reading the traditional tradition relay's on the method "ought to be acting." This meaning is the individual or group from the government acting accordingly to their governed power. As to the behavioral tradition definition almost similar to the traditional method the behavior group likes evaluate how well the group or individual is acting based off of the Constitution or legal manor. While the traditional method sticks to the standard judgment with their outcomes behavioral traditions use math and statistics to show their outcome. I believe that the flaw isn't particularly what they don't do but what they do differently as a group. For instance if the uses of math and statistics was used at certain times in the traditional method we might see further investigations as such produce more evidence of what the group is working towards.

As Christians we tend to follow the scripture as rule of law, with this we follow more of a biblical understanding of how the pursuit of law it justified. For example "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12) If the individuals in government or the government itself followed this scripture would we need more then one political science school group? I believe that the difference between these groups and the Christian view would be the justification of God's word.