CHAPTER 4
How the Research Is
Empirically Examined
There is an almost complete consensus concerning the argument that the
ultimate test of theory in social science is its ability to explain events that
occur in the real world. However, the question of whether theories can
be empirically assessed is given two extreme answers. Michael Nicholson
argues that theories can be theoretically assessed,^1 whereas Charles Taylor
denies this and argues that phenomena can be explained logically.^2 Like
other studies in theoretical international relations research,^3 the current
study supports Nicholson’s statements that theories can be empirically
assessed.
The international relations theory of war makes an attempt to convert
historical knowledge into an overall theory that will provide an expla-
nation to the question of why the two international outcomes assessed
in the study receive the values that the theory expects them to receive.^4
The theory helps in the development of useful knowledge for under-
standing two of the most important problems in international relations.^5
According to the study, the two international outcomes that it attempts
to explain—the systemic outcome and intrasystemic outcome—are best
explained at the system level rather than at the state level or individual
level.
To ensure the validity of the conclusions that arise from the theory,
I have maintained a number of principles and rules during its empiric
examination:
- The theory is examined by observation because in international relations
research it is almost impossible to use experimentation.^6 As political
science researchers, we cannot examine our hypotheses by initiating a
war, for example.