Comparative Politics: What Is Science?

Core Concepts and Definitions of Science

• Comparative Politics: A subfield of political science that focuses primarily on politics within countries.
• Science: A method and strategy for provisionally understanding and explaining the social and natural world that emphasizes the use of statements that can be examined to see whether they are wrong.
• Epistemology: The study of knowledge and how individuals come to know what they know. Science provides a specific answer to epistemology by subjecting ideas to the recklessly critical light of logic and evidence.
• Culture of Science: A reflective and critical stance characterized by self-criticism, humility, and awareness of one's own ignorance, rather than authority or static dogmatism.
  • Sir Karl Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery): "The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth."
  • Socrates (Plato's Apology): True wisdom begins with recognizing one's own ignorance: "I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him."
  • Saint Paul (First Letter to the Thessalonians): "Test everything. Keep what is good."

Scientific Statements and Falsifiability

• Falsifiability: The defining criterion of a scientific statement. A statement is falsifiable if there is some imaginable observation or set of observations that could falsify or refute it.
  • Scientific statements must be potentially testable; they do not need to have been tested already, nor do researchers need current technology or data to test them immediately.
  • Scientific statements are not defined by their truth or falsity. The claim "The sun revolves around the earth" is scientific because it is falsifiable, even though it is empirically false.
• Nonfalsifiable Statements: Statements that cannot be proven false by any conceivable observation. Nonfalsifiable statements are nonscientific, but they are not necessarily meaningless or false.
  • Tautologies: Statements that are true by definition (e.g., "Strong states are able to overcome special interests in order to implement policies that are best for the nation"). Unless a strong state is defined independently of its ability to overcome special interests, the claim is a tautology.
  • Unobservable Phenomena: Claims referring to inherent non-observables (e.g., "God exists" or "God created the world"). These fall outside the domain of science because they cannot be subjected to empirical testing.

The Scientific Method

1. Step 1: Question / Puzzle
   • Begins when an observation of the real world conflicts with prior expectations or theoretical assumptions, triggering the question: "Why did that occur?"
2. Step 2: Theory or Model
   • Theory (or Model/Explanation): A set of logically consistent statements that explain why an observed phenomenon occurs.
   • Principle of the Uniformity of Nature: Asserts that nature's operating mechanisms are unchanging in the sense that if $X$ causes $Y$ today, it will also cause $Y$ tomorrow and into the future.
   • Model Building: Models are simplified representations of reality designed to isolate essential processes. Descriptive accuracy is not a core value; useful models include only elements necessary to explain the puzzle and exclude superfluous details.
   • Creativity in Science: Insights can come from any source. For example, August Kekulé discovered the ring structure of benzene after visual hallucinating swirls of atoms while half-asleep by his fireplace. Insight becomes scientific only when subjected to rigorous logical testing.
3. Step 3: Implications (Hypotheses)
   • Deduction of new predictions from the model beyond the initial observation used to construct it.
   • Good models are fertile (generate many implications, offering multiple opportunities for testing and falsification) and produce surprising implications (reveal unexpected insights).
4. Step 4: Observe the World (Test Hypotheses)
   • Gathering empirical evidence to attempt to falsify the derived implications.
   • Critical Test: A test that enables an observer to evaluate competing explanations of the same phenomenon simultaneously when two models make contradictory predictions about a real-world observation.
5. Step 5: Evaluation
   • If observations match predictions, the theory is corroborated (not verified or proven).
   • If observations contradict predictions, the theory is challenged and subject to revision or rejection.

Detailed Example of Model Building: Smart Female Athletes

• Observation/Puzzle: Female student-athletes frequently perform better academically than non-athletes despite missing classes for competitions.
• Evaluating Explanations:
  • Naive Conjecture 1: "Female athletes are smart" (Merely restates the observation).
  • Naive Conjecture 2: "Athletes are smart" (Lacks causal process; borders on tautology).
• Three Competing Theories:
  • Work Ethic Theory: Engaging in structured activities with external incentives (e.g., coaches) instills habits of hard work that transfer to academic endeavors.
  • Excellence Theory: Experiencing success in one domain creates a taste for success and competitive drive that motivates individuals to excel across other domains.
  • Gender Theory: Gender-segregated athletic environments provide women freedom from stultifying gender bias, enhancing autonomy and self-efficacy that carry over into classrooms.
• Deducing Predictions for Critical Tests:

Introduction to Formal Logic

• Argument: A set of logically connected statements typically formatted as premises and a conclusion.
• Premise: A statement presumed to be true within the context of an argument.
• Conclusion: A claim supported by the premises.
• Valid Argument: An argument in which accepting the premises logically compels the acceptance of the conclusion.
• Invalid Argument: An argument in which accepting the premises leaves one free to accept or reject the conclusion.
• Categorical Syllogism: A formal structure consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.
  • Major Premise: A conditional statement formatted as "If $P$, then $Q$".
    • $P$ = Antecedent ("If" clause).
    • $Q$ = Consequent ("Then" clause).
  • Minor Premise: A statement asserting or denying the antecedent or consequent.
  • Conclusion: The logical inference drawn.

Set-Theoretic Representation of the Major Premise

• The statement "If $P$, then $Q$" specifies that all instances of $P$ are contained within the set of $Q$.

Four Conditional Argument Forms

1. Affirming the Antecedent (Valid)
   • Major Premise: If $P$, then $Q$ (e.g., If a country is wealthy, then it will be a democracy).
   • Minor Premise: $P$ (The country is wealthy).
   • Conclusion: Therefore, $Q$ (Therefore, the country will be a democracy).
2. Denying the Antecedent (Invalid)
   • Major Premise: If $P$, then $Q$ (e.g., If a country is wealthy, then it will be a democracy).
   • Minor Premise: Not $P$ (The country is not wealthy).
   • Conclusion: Therefore, Not $Q$ (Therefore, the country will not be a democracy).
   • Explanation of Invalidity: Cases outside $P$ can still reside inside set $Q$ (e.g., India is a poor democracy). The premise does not claim wealth is necessary for democracy.
3. Affirming the Consequent (Invalid)
   • Major Premise: If $P$, then $Q$ (e.g., If a country is wealthy, then it will be a democracy).
   • Minor Premise: $Q$ (The country is a democracy).
   • Conclusion: Therefore, $P$ (Therefore, the country is wealthy).
   • Explanation of Invalidity: Confuses sufficiency with necessity. Being in $Q$ does not guarantee being in $P$.
4. Denying the Consequent (Valid)
   • Major Premise: If $P$, then $Q$ (e.g., If a country is wealthy, then it will be a democracy).
   • Minor Premise: Not $Q$ (The country is not a democracy).
   • Conclusion: Therefore, Not $P$ (Therefore, the country is not wealthy).
   • Explanation of Validity: Being outside set $Q$ guarantees being outside set $P$.

Summary of Conditional Logic

Epistemological Implications of Logic in Science

• Testing Theories via Implication:
  • Major Premise: If Theory $T$ is correct, then implication $I$ will be observed.
  • Minor Premise: Implication $I$ is observed.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, Theory $T$ is correct.
  • Logical Status: Invalid (Affirming the Consequent). Confirming observations cannot prove a theory true because alternative unstated theories could yield the exact same observation.
• Falsifying Theories:
  • Major Premise: If Theory $T$ is correct, then implication $I$ will be observed.
  • Minor Premise: Implication $I$ is not observed.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, Theory $T$ is incorrect.
  • Logical Status: Valid (Denying the Consequent). Disconfirming instances compel the rejection of the theory's logical validity.
• Asymmetry of Verification and Falsification: Scientific knowledge is inherently asymmetrical; theories can be logically proven false, but can never be logically proven true.
  • Sir Karl Popper ([1959] 2003): "The old scientific ideal of episteme—of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge—has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever…"
• Falsificationism: An approach to science in which researchers generate testable hypotheses from theories and subject them to rigorous empirical attempts at refutation.
• Deduction vs. Induction:
  • Deductive Approach: Formulates an expectation/theory first, then collects real-world observations to test implications. (Theory precedes Observation).
  • Inductive Approach: Observes data first, identifies patterns, and generates a theory based on those patterns. (Observation precedes Theory).
  • Critique of Induction: Relies logically on affirming the consequent. Furthermore, pure theory-free observation is impossible because scholars always select specific facts based on implicit theoretical hunches.

The Comparative Method (Mill's Methods)

• The Comparative Method: Formulated by John Stuart Mill (1872, A System of Logic); an inductive method searching for necessary and sufficient causes of phenomena.
• Causal Concepts:
  • Necessary Condition: A circumstance in whose absence a phenomenon cannot occur ($Y$ occurs only if $X$ is present).
  • Sufficient Condition: A circumstance in whose presence a phenomenon must occur (If $X$ is present, $Y$ must occur).
• Mill's Method of Agreement:
  • Compares cases that agree on the presence of the phenomenon to be explained.
  • Identifies necessary conditions by eliminating factors that are not present across all cases.

Application: Method of Agreement

• Inferences:

  • Ethnic Homogeneity is not necessary (Belgium is diverse).
  • Parliamentary System is not necessary (US is presidential).
  • Wealth survives as a candidate necessary condition.
  • Limitation: Cannot evaluate sufficient conditions because non-democracies are excluded.

• Mill's Method of Difference:

  • Compares cases that disagree on the outcome (evaluates both necessary and sufficient conditions).

Application: Method of Difference

• Inferences:

  • Wealth is not sufficient for democracy (Mexico was wealthy but non-democratic).
  • Ethnic Homogeneity is neither necessary nor sufficient.
  • Parliamentary System is not necessary, but remains potentially sufficient.

• Critiques and Limitations of Mill's Methods:

  1. Assumes deterministic causation (fails in a probabilistic world).
  2. Assumes a single cause exists (ignores equifinality/multiple causal paths).
  3. Assumes all causal factors are identified and operate independently without interaction.
  4. Mill explicitly warned against applying his methods to political sciences.
  5. Provides no mechanism or story explaining why factors co-vary (lacks process/theory).
  6. Inductive logic means theories derived from comparative methods cannot be tested on the same data without affirming the consequent.

Common Myths About Science

1. Myth 1: Science proves things and provides certain truth.
   • Fact: Science provides tentative claims. Scientific progress is the evolution of ignorance.
2. Myth 2: Science requires experimental manipulation.
   • Fact: Science requires only potential falsifiability (e.g., astronomy, evolutionary biology, or Einstein's relativity prior to the 1919 solar eclipse test).
3. Myth 3: Science is value-neutral.
   • Fact: Scientific inquiry interacts with human values and social policy. High evidentiary standards protect society against damaging policy errors.
4. Myth 4: Politics cannot be studied scientifically.
   • Fact: Political phenomena generate testable, falsifiable hypotheses evaluated via logical deduction and empirical observation.

Analytical Review Problems and Practice Logic Exercises

Categorical Syllogisms

1. Argument:
   • Major Premise: If a country has a strong economy, the government will be popular.
   • Minor Premise: The government is not popular.
   • Conclusion: Therefore, the country does not have a strong economy.
   • Evaluation: Valid argument. Form: Denying the Consequent.
2. Argument:
   • Major Premise: If the president commits a criminal act, then he can be impeached.
   • Minor Premise: The president does not commit a criminal act.
   • Conclusion: Therefore, the president cannot be impeached.
   • Evaluation: Invalid argument. Form: Denying the Antecedent.
3. Argument:
   • Major Premise: If a country employs proportional representation electoral rules, it will have many parties.
   • Minor Premise: The country does not employ proportional representation electoral rules.
   • Conclusion: Therefore, the country does not have many parties.
   • Evaluation: Invalid argument. Form: Denying the Antecedent.
4. Argument:
   • Major Premise: If theory $T$ is correct, all rich countries will be democracies.
   • Minor Premise: All rich countries are democracies.
   • Conclusion: Therefore, theory $T$ is correct.
   • Evaluation: Invalid argument. Form: Affirming the Consequent.
   • To demonstrate theory $T$ is wrong: Observe a rich country that is not a democracy.

Scientific vs. Nonscientific Statements

• "Smoking increases the probability of getting cancer": Scientific (Falsifiable via epidemiological data).
• "A square is a two-dimensional figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles": Nonscientific (Tautology/definition).
• "The sun revolves around the earth": Scientific (Falsifiable and proven false).
• "It always rains in England during the winter": Scientific (Falsifiable by weather logs).
• "Education spending increases under left-wing governments": Scientific (Falsifiable via budgetary data).
• "Iceland is a country": Nonscientific (Definitional classification).
• "Religious faith assures a person a place in the afterlife": Nonscientific (Involves inherently unobservable phenomena).
• "Democracies are less likely to go to war than dictatorships": Scientific (Falsifiable via historical war records).

Evaluating Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

• "If a person contracts measles, then she was exposed to the measles virus." $ ightarrow$ Measles is Sufficient to indicate exposure (Exposure is Necessary).
• "If a democracy is rich, then it will stay a democracy." $ ightarrow$ Being rich is Sufficient for democratic survival.
• "A country cannot maintain a democratic form of government unless it has a culture that promotes civic participation." $ ightarrow$ Civic culture is Necessary for democracy.
• "Countries have many parties only when they employ proportional electoral rules." $ ightarrow$ Proportional rules are Necessary for many parties.
• "Countries always have few parties when they employ majoritarian electoral rules." $ ightarrow$ Majoritarian rules are Sufficient for few parties.