Probably not. Hard sciences are more objective than social sciences. And the Peace Prize is always going to be controversial, as it involves groups of people who vehemently disagree with one another.
One person's idea of "making peace" may be another's idea of freedom-stifling imposition. Might one be considered for a Peace Prize for putting down an insurrection that others saw as taking up arms as a last resort against a dictator? Might Neville Chamberlain have been considered for the accolade, having (as it was widely thought at the time) prevented WWII? Was Arafat's selection a Prodigal Son reward to the militant who put down the gun and picked up the olive branch, or was it an obscenity that glorified a terrorist? Reasonable people have differed.
no subject
Probably not. Hard sciences are more objective than social sciences. And the Peace Prize is always going to be controversial, as it involves groups of people who vehemently disagree with one another.
One person's idea of "making peace" may be another's idea of freedom-stifling imposition. Might one be considered for a Peace Prize for putting down an insurrection that others saw as taking up arms as a last resort against a dictator? Might Neville Chamberlain have been considered for the accolade, having (as it was widely thought at the time) prevented WWII? Was Arafat's selection a Prodigal Son reward to the militant who put down the gun and picked up the olive branch, or was it an obscenity that glorified a terrorist? Reasonable people have differed.