Final answer:
Almond argues that political scientists are divided along the dimensions of science and ideology, representing the split between empirical political science and political philosophy, which focus on how politics operates versus the ethical considerations of political structures.
Step-by-step explanation:
Political scientist Gabriel Almond's argument suggests that political scientists are divided along the dimensions of science and ideology. This division pertains to the different approaches taken within the study of political science, which is the systematic study of political phenomena using empirical or philosophical methods. The distinction is between those who engage in normative political science, or political philosophy, which seeks to answer questions about the purposes and goals of politics based on reason and logic, and those involved in empirical political science, which attempts to understand how the political world operates through evidence and observation.
Normative political science often involves moral considerations and may argue that certain political structures or outcomes are ethically right or wrong. Empirical political science, in contrast, focuses on observing political behavior to uncover patterns that may enable predictions of how institutions and humans interact in political contexts. Despite these differences, both approaches are essential to the comprehensive study of politics and are often used in tandem by researchers.