Abstract
ABSTRACT International relations theories have often been faulted for not advancing falsifiable forecasts. Given the complexities of geopolitics and the near impossibility of satisfying the “ceteris paribus” clause in scientific hypothesis testing, this criticism imposes an unfair standard. It is reasonable however to ask about the predictive track records of international relations theorists who enter high-stakes policy debates. Whether a neorealist of neo-institutionalist proves an adroit or maladroit forecaster sheds little light on the truth status of their preferred theory but considerable light on: (a) how much credence to attach to their claims about the likely outcomes of pursuing various policy options in specific theaters of conflict; (b) how superior forecasters blend abstract covering laws with real-world knowledge to generate well-calibrated probability estimates.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
