We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
"Why is it called 'science'? To make it sound more serious?"
No. Because when science first came into English through French from Latin scientia in the 14th Century, it retained the more generalized academic meaning of "knowledge, learning".
The modern specialized meaning of "scientific knowledge, study and research" began to pick up by the end of the 17th Century. When the discipline of political science arose in the 19th Century, it would have been understood as "knowledge and study of political systems and beliefs".
I do agree that, to the modern ear, political science sounds rather oxymoronic, to say the least.
It is a science because it is an attempt to understand why things happen a certain way.
Much like Economics is a science.
People tend to think science means "predictive". If I mix X with Y I will get Z as a result. Always. But that's not science, that's just the outcome of limited, and managed, inputs. They are predictable.
Economics and Politics are capable of being understood, but aren't at all predictable because of the nature of the inputs - there are too many and they are often irrational.
As for Hobbes, one of his greatest flaws was assuming that it was government that subdued the 'brutish' nature of man. That, in retrospect, seems absurd.
When I was in college (Poli Sci major) that is exactly how I was taught.
When I studied Economics, a Political Economy professor pointed out the flaw in this concept.
"If man was so brutish, and outcomes of interactions so horrible, how did anyone come together long enough to either decide on a form of government which made sense, or develop the ability to yield enough power to FORCE a form of government on people?"
Obviously, the natural interactions of individuals had a very high level of trust involved - enabling them to come together in certain situations, and develop some agreeable forms of governance to help oversee and judge their interactions. (Remember, God ONLY wanted judges, even when He reluctantly gave Israel their king)
What is unusual is that, somewhere along the way, the individuals allowed the government to play bigger and bigger roles in their lives...to the point that it became almost acceptable to allow it and it was EXPECTED to have an authority figure not only overseeing things - but GUIDING them.
Which, of course, is where Marx went terribly off the rails.