Truthiness may be a lot more applicable than you think.

“Are theoretically informed analyses of empirical events and situations -- like Bretton Woods, for instance -- anything but opinions? In other words, can they be right or wrong, or is the answer always just ‘it depends on your point of view’?”

Let’s look at some definitions. (All of these are courtesy of Merriam-Webster)

Knowledge: 2) a (1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association, b (1):the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding

Opinion: 1) a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter, or, as I prefer to put it: 2) belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

Theory: 1) the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

Analysis: 4) an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations

Fact: 3) the quality of being actual or, once again, as I prefer it, 5) a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

Alright, so, a theory (and hypothesis, as well), is basically made to explain a fact, or facts. Following that, a theory is then an opinion that is, not backed by facts, but formulated by the collection of facts, and the observations made when looking at these facts together. This is all categorized under “knowledge”, except for facts. Facts can be under that umbrella of knowledge, and outside of it as well (does this mean they’re in the rain?). There are certainly facts that we, as humans, haven’t discovered yet, but are in existence (and I am not going to get into an argument about whether things exist outside of us, you and Descartes can go chat that up somewhere). Looking at it scientifically, just because, back in the day, people didn’t know that the body was made up of cells, didn’t mean it wasn’t, it meant that the theories they devised were limited by their own technology.

Getting back on track to the question… basically, can empirical situations only be analyzed through opinions? One more definition: empirical: 1) originating in or based on observation or experience.

Crazily enough, observation is the first step within the “scientific method”. …Sorry, one more definition: scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Essentially, then, we observe something, form a hypothesis on it (read: opinion), then create an experiment in order to see if our hypothesis was correct. Sounds simple enough. However, if the experiment cannot be created again, whatever predictions we make based off our one experiment fall flat, because unless it is reproducible by anyone, then it cannot be ascertained as fact.

So, can something like the analysis of the Bretton Woods system be determined as fact? No. Since we cannot recreate the Bretton Woods experiment, we cannot accept the analysis as fact. Nor can we accept it as theory, since, once again, the scientific method is used to develop theories, which can always be questioned (Einstein’s theory of relativity may be blown out of the water by nature). While theories can be created about empirical situations, the ones that are able to recreated, or viewed again and again, are ones that become strong theories. Ones where the experiment only occurred once are closer towards opinions than theories. Even if facts about empirical situations are included in these theories and opinions, the relationships that were derived from the facts to create those theories can’t be realized again.

So where does that leave us? Nowhere in particular. Analysis of empirical situations taken in an international politics perspective have to be considered opinions, or theories, whichever you prefer.

That isn’t necessarily bad; I never said opinions and discussion were bad. Most of the actions we take in our life are based off of theories, and most actions world leaders take are based off of theories.

The fact that theories can’t be objectively proven just lends to more progress. If we act on a theory we’ve created, and it turns out to lead to more costs than benefits, then we rework the theory, and try again, in an attempt to keep moving forward. The only constant is change, as they say.

Having a discussion isn’t something to scorn, it is just something that isn’t very quantifiable (or, by necessity, objective).