Too bad we don't apply scientific thought to politics. If every person analyzed every statement coming from every politician, and really came to understand exactly what it was they were saying, realized how often they twist and spin the truth, perhaps we might then start to elect the few people who actually speak the [sometimes unpleasant] truth. Who are actually committed to working for the common good, even if that means sometimes asking the people to do something difficult. Like not consuming so much unnecessary stuff. Like living within our means. Like being truly 'conservative', instead of 'politically conservative'.
Regardless of the field of study, those committed to a scientific approach to generating answers to questions, whether theoretical or practical in nature, can almost always be described in terms of a five-step process known as the scientific method. We will quickly review the steps with special focus on how they differ from unscientific ways of gaining knowledge. The steps are:
1. Observe a phenomena that needs to be explained
2. Construct provisional explanations or pose hypotheses
3. Design an adequate test of the hypotheses
4. Execute the test
5. Accept, reject, or modify our hypotheses based on the outcome of our test
We'll have to work on this: a scientific method of political speech analysis.