Political Scientists like Maitland, Burke, Gettel do not think that Politics is really a Science. Their arguments are as follows :
1. Disagreement in Definition, Terminology and Methods
There is no general agreement among Political thinkers regarding definition, scope, terminology etc. There is no exactness or precision in the political science, as a result, they cannot be accepted and applied universally. This does not happen in case of natural sciences like physics and chemistry.
2. Lack of Precision
Principles of Political Science are not precise, clear and they lead to many controversies. Where – as a formula in physics or chemistry is clear and universally accepted. eg. The laws of gravity or the principles of arithmetic i.e. Two plus two equals four every where. However Political Science like pure and natural sciences such as physics and Mathematics does not possess any such universally relevant principles.
3. Human Beings
Politics deals with human beings whose minds are unpredictable. Political scientists have to deal with man (human beings) who are not under their control. Human behavior is unpredictable and not always logical. Whereas physics and chemistry deal with matter or inanimate objects (non living objects). Natural scientist work in laboratories and the objects are perfectly under their control. Hence their rules and laws are absolute, and universal.
4. Limited Experimentation
Experimentation in laboratory or in an isolated environment is not possible in Politics like natural sciences.
5. Lack of Objectivity
Political Science lacks objectivity but subjective element is very strong. Political-science is subjective and relative because political scientist has to deal with human beings in relation to society, State, Government etc.
6. Diffcult to Predict Future
Political phenomena do not follow proper sequence like exact science. At times, the effects are contrary and therefore the results cannot be predicted.