Can political theories be tested like scientific ones? And if they can, does it matter? Alexis Papazoglou argues in the New Republic that, even if they can be tested, it is less important than other factors in the success of the political theory. In his signal case, the conflict between anti-globalist populists and the conventional international order is questioned as resulting in clear outcomes that somehow will determine the viability of one theory versus the other. It’s an ongoing experiment. Papazoglou breaks down the conflict as parallel to the notion that scientific processes ultimately win on falsifiability and rationality. In science, as per Kuhn’s landmark The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the process is more paradigmatic agendas, powerful leaders, and less calculated rationality.

The scientific process may have been all of those things, of course, and may continue to be so in the future, but there are ongoing developments that make it less likely that sociological factors will dominate. And this is why the comparison with political theories is perhaps wrongheaded. There may be a community of political theorists but they are hardly the primary architects and spectators of politics, unlike science and scientists. We are all political actors, yet very few have the time or inclination to look carefully at the literature on the threat of successful authoritarian Chinese civilization versus Western liberal democracy, for instance. But we are not all scientific actors, despite being governed by the reality of the world around us. Politics yells and seethes while science quietly attends a conference. Even the consequences of science are often so gradualistic in their unfolding that we barely notice them; see the astonishing progress on cancer survival in the past decades and note the need for economic discounting for global climate change, where the slow creep of existential threats are somehow given dollar values.… Read the rest