Principles of Comparative Politics Notes
Chapter 1: Introduction
• Comparative politics is study of political phenomena that occur predominantly within
countries
• International politics is study of political phenomena that occur predominantly between
countries
• These definitions limit logical possibilities involved in study of politics—political
phenomena occur either within or between countries
• Book topics include
o State failure
o Economic determinants of democracy
o Cultural determinants of democracy
o The pros of democracy (or cons)?
o Institutional design
Chapter 2: What is Science?
• Nature of science
o Science is strategy for understanding and explaining social and natural world that
emphasizes use of statements that can be examined to see whether they are wrong
o Scientific explanations should explain previously puzzling facts, be logically
consistent, and produce (many) potentially falsifiable predictions
o All scientific explanations are tentative. Explanations are accepted as
provisionally true when they have withstood vigorous attempts at refutation more
successfully than competing explanations
• Five wrong statements to consider in intro
o Science is collection of facts that tell us what we know about world
▪
o Scientific theory is one that has been proven
▪ Cannot be proven
o “The sun revolves around the earth” is not a scientific statement
o if my theory is correct, then I should observe that rich countries are more likely to
be democracies. I do observe that rich countries are more likely to be
democracies. Therefore, my theory is correct
▪ logically invalid; thus, it’s incorrect
o Politics cannot be studied in a scientific manner
• What is Science?
o Science is a method for “provisionally” understanding the world and a culture
as well
, o Body of knowledge that we call “scientific” may well be product of science, but
not science itself
o Science is quest for knowledge that relies on criticism
o What distinguishes science from “nonscience” is that scientific statements must
be falsifiable
▪ They must be potentially testable
▪ There must be some imaginable observation(s) that could falsify or refute
them
o Tautologies are not falsifiable because they are true by definition
o Other statements or hypotheses are not falsifiable because they refer to inherently
unobservable phenomena
▪ i.e. God exists or God created
o All that is required for a statement to be scientific is that it is falsifiable
• The scientific method
o Describes process by which scientists learn about world
o Steps
▪ Question
• Observe world and come up with question
• Surprise that greets observation implies observation doesn’t match
some prior expectation or theory that we held about how world
works
▪ Theory or model
• Come up with theory or model to explain observation
• Theory is set of logically consistent statements that tell us why
things we observe occur
• Theories that are logically inconsistent should not be tested since
observations wouldn’t truly falsify them
• The uniformity of nature asserts that nature’s operating
mechanisms are unchanging; a result of some recurring process
o If X causes Y today, it will cause it tomorrow and so on
• A model is a simplified picture of the world
o Contains only what is needed to explain the phenomenon
▪ Implications (Hypotheses)
• Deduce implications from model other than those we set out to
explain
• Predictions represents opportunity for model to fail and makes
model easier to falsify
▪ Observe World (Test Hypotheses)
, • Examine whether implications of model are consistent with
observation
• Goal of this is to falsify, not uphold implications of model or
defend to try to prove model right
• Critical test allows analyst to use observation to distinguish
between two or more competing explanations of same
phenomenon
▪ Evaluation
• If we observe implications deduced from theory, we say that theory
has been corroborated
• Introduction to Logic
o Study of logic is about learning to be careful about how we construct and evaluate
arguments
o Inability to distinguish between valid an invalid argument can lead to
manipulation and exploitation from others
o Valid and Invalid Arguments
▪ Argument is set of logically connected statements, typically in form of a
set of premises and conclusion
▪ A premise is a statement that is presumed to be true within context of
argument leading to conclusion
▪ A conclusion in an argument is a claim that is thought to be supported by
premises
▪ An argument is valid when accepting its premises compels us to accept
conclusion
▪ Argument is invalid if, when accepting premises of argument, we are free
to accept or reject its conclusions
▪ One way to represent argument is form of categorical syllogism that
consists of major premise, minor premise, and conclusion
• Major premise represented as conditional statement such as “If P,
then Q”
• The “if” part is called the antecedent, whereas the “then” part is
called the consequent
• Minor premise consists of claim about either antecedent or
consequent in conditional statement (major premise)
• Conclusion is claim that is thought to be supported by premises
, • Four types of conditional arguments can be represented with this
syllogism
o Arguments that deny or affirm antecedent
o Arguments that affirm or deny consequent
o Affirming antecedent and denying consequent leads to a
valid argument
▪ If P, then Q. P, therefore Q
▪ If P, then Q. Not Q, therefore not P
o Denying antecedent and affirming consequent leads to
invalid arguments
▪ If P, then Q. Not P, therefore, not Q
▪ If P, then Q. Q, therefore P
o Testing Theories
▪ Explanations are typically evaluated by observing real world to see if
implications of their explanations appear to be true based on assumption
• “If my theory is true, then its implications will be true”
• Affirming and denying consequent due to implications
o If theory T is correct, then we should observe some
implication I; we don’t observe implication.
Therefore, theory is incorrect (valid)
o If theory is correct, then we should observe some
implication; we observe implication. Therefore, theory
is correct (invalid)
▪ The mere fact of observing predicted implication doesn’t allow us to
categorically accept or reject theory
▪ When implication of theory is confirmed, most we can say is theory may
be correct because neither of two possible conclusions contradicts
premises
▪ On other hand, if theory is inconsistent with observation, logic compels us
to accept theory is false
▪ We are logically justified in having more confidence when rejecting theory
than when we don’t
▪ Falsificationism is an approach to science in which scientists generate
testable hypotheses from theories designed to explain phenomena of
interest
▪ It emphasizes that scientific theories are constantly called into question
and merit lies only in how well they stand up to rigorous testing
Chapter 1: Introduction
• Comparative politics is study of political phenomena that occur predominantly within
countries
• International politics is study of political phenomena that occur predominantly between
countries
• These definitions limit logical possibilities involved in study of politics—political
phenomena occur either within or between countries
• Book topics include
o State failure
o Economic determinants of democracy
o Cultural determinants of democracy
o The pros of democracy (or cons)?
o Institutional design
Chapter 2: What is Science?
• Nature of science
o Science is strategy for understanding and explaining social and natural world that
emphasizes use of statements that can be examined to see whether they are wrong
o Scientific explanations should explain previously puzzling facts, be logically
consistent, and produce (many) potentially falsifiable predictions
o All scientific explanations are tentative. Explanations are accepted as
provisionally true when they have withstood vigorous attempts at refutation more
successfully than competing explanations
• Five wrong statements to consider in intro
o Science is collection of facts that tell us what we know about world
▪
o Scientific theory is one that has been proven
▪ Cannot be proven
o “The sun revolves around the earth” is not a scientific statement
o if my theory is correct, then I should observe that rich countries are more likely to
be democracies. I do observe that rich countries are more likely to be
democracies. Therefore, my theory is correct
▪ logically invalid; thus, it’s incorrect
o Politics cannot be studied in a scientific manner
• What is Science?
o Science is a method for “provisionally” understanding the world and a culture
as well
, o Body of knowledge that we call “scientific” may well be product of science, but
not science itself
o Science is quest for knowledge that relies on criticism
o What distinguishes science from “nonscience” is that scientific statements must
be falsifiable
▪ They must be potentially testable
▪ There must be some imaginable observation(s) that could falsify or refute
them
o Tautologies are not falsifiable because they are true by definition
o Other statements or hypotheses are not falsifiable because they refer to inherently
unobservable phenomena
▪ i.e. God exists or God created
o All that is required for a statement to be scientific is that it is falsifiable
• The scientific method
o Describes process by which scientists learn about world
o Steps
▪ Question
• Observe world and come up with question
• Surprise that greets observation implies observation doesn’t match
some prior expectation or theory that we held about how world
works
▪ Theory or model
• Come up with theory or model to explain observation
• Theory is set of logically consistent statements that tell us why
things we observe occur
• Theories that are logically inconsistent should not be tested since
observations wouldn’t truly falsify them
• The uniformity of nature asserts that nature’s operating
mechanisms are unchanging; a result of some recurring process
o If X causes Y today, it will cause it tomorrow and so on
• A model is a simplified picture of the world
o Contains only what is needed to explain the phenomenon
▪ Implications (Hypotheses)
• Deduce implications from model other than those we set out to
explain
• Predictions represents opportunity for model to fail and makes
model easier to falsify
▪ Observe World (Test Hypotheses)
, • Examine whether implications of model are consistent with
observation
• Goal of this is to falsify, not uphold implications of model or
defend to try to prove model right
• Critical test allows analyst to use observation to distinguish
between two or more competing explanations of same
phenomenon
▪ Evaluation
• If we observe implications deduced from theory, we say that theory
has been corroborated
• Introduction to Logic
o Study of logic is about learning to be careful about how we construct and evaluate
arguments
o Inability to distinguish between valid an invalid argument can lead to
manipulation and exploitation from others
o Valid and Invalid Arguments
▪ Argument is set of logically connected statements, typically in form of a
set of premises and conclusion
▪ A premise is a statement that is presumed to be true within context of
argument leading to conclusion
▪ A conclusion in an argument is a claim that is thought to be supported by
premises
▪ An argument is valid when accepting its premises compels us to accept
conclusion
▪ Argument is invalid if, when accepting premises of argument, we are free
to accept or reject its conclusions
▪ One way to represent argument is form of categorical syllogism that
consists of major premise, minor premise, and conclusion
• Major premise represented as conditional statement such as “If P,
then Q”
• The “if” part is called the antecedent, whereas the “then” part is
called the consequent
• Minor premise consists of claim about either antecedent or
consequent in conditional statement (major premise)
• Conclusion is claim that is thought to be supported by premises
, • Four types of conditional arguments can be represented with this
syllogism
o Arguments that deny or affirm antecedent
o Arguments that affirm or deny consequent
o Affirming antecedent and denying consequent leads to a
valid argument
▪ If P, then Q. P, therefore Q
▪ If P, then Q. Not Q, therefore not P
o Denying antecedent and affirming consequent leads to
invalid arguments
▪ If P, then Q. Not P, therefore, not Q
▪ If P, then Q. Q, therefore P
o Testing Theories
▪ Explanations are typically evaluated by observing real world to see if
implications of their explanations appear to be true based on assumption
• “If my theory is true, then its implications will be true”
• Affirming and denying consequent due to implications
o If theory T is correct, then we should observe some
implication I; we don’t observe implication.
Therefore, theory is incorrect (valid)
o If theory is correct, then we should observe some
implication; we observe implication. Therefore, theory
is correct (invalid)
▪ The mere fact of observing predicted implication doesn’t allow us to
categorically accept or reject theory
▪ When implication of theory is confirmed, most we can say is theory may
be correct because neither of two possible conclusions contradicts
premises
▪ On other hand, if theory is inconsistent with observation, logic compels us
to accept theory is false
▪ We are logically justified in having more confidence when rejecting theory
than when we don’t
▪ Falsificationism is an approach to science in which scientists generate
testable hypotheses from theories designed to explain phenomena of
interest
▪ It emphasizes that scientific theories are constantly called into question
and merit lies only in how well they stand up to rigorous testing
