Evaluating Theories
- 1 December 1997
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in American Political Science Review
- Vol. 91 (4), 913-917
- https://doi.org/10.2307/2952173
Abstract
John Vasquez claims to follow Imre Lakatos but distorts his criteria for judging theories and evaluating research programs. Vasquez claims that facts observed can falsify a theory by showing that its predictions are wrong. He fails to consider the puzzles posed by the interdependence of theory and fact. He places all realists in a single paradigm despite the divergent assumptions of traditional and structural realists. In contrast to Vasquez, I argue that explanation, not prediction, is the ultimate criterion of good theory, that a theory can be validated only by working back and forth between its implications and an uncertain state of affairs that we take to be the reality against which theory is tested, and that the results of tests are always problematic.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz's Balancing PropositionAmerican Political Science Review, 1997
- Historical Reality vs. Neo-Realist TheoryInternational Security, 1994
- Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back InInternational Security, 1994
- The Neoidealist Moment in International Studies? Realist Myths and the New International Realities: ISA Presidential Address March 27, 1993 Acapulco, MexicoInternational Studies Quarterly, 1993
- The Emerging Structure of International PoliticsInternational Security, 1993
- The Garnaut Report: The quality of realismAustralian Journal of International Affairs, 1990
- Chain gangs and passed bucks: predicting alliance patterns in multipolarityInternational Organization, 1990
- The Origins of AlliancesForeign Affairs, 1988
- Power and interdependenceSurvival, 1973
- The Structure of ScienceAmerican Journal of Physics, 1961