Thinking comparatively and theoretically:

Coincidentally, this fall, I have two classes that talked about the various aspects of theory. Professor King says that theories explain observation and he provides the five rules a theory should have. Professor Brown says theories reflect an individual's personality and social environment. We can compare the theories of the state (e.g. Marxism, Functionalism, and Institutionalism). We can compare theories of the regime (e.g. totalitarian, authoritarian, corporatist, and pluralist). We can compare theories based on their methods and use of surveys, interviews, archives, and etc. Lastly, we can compare theories based on their overall accuracy, causality, parsimony, generality, and falsifiability.

There are many levels of comparison to determine the strength of a theory. For example, we can compare Weber and Aristotle's theories about the state on the basis of their social environment (e.g. class structure, economics, and government). We can also compare their theories based on how they structure their arguments, what they emphasize and their logic. Lastly, we can also try to identify the strength of their methodology and how their theories are derived. Is it based on observation, gathering interviews, or history/literature?

In order to look at theories objectively I think it is essential to compare the authors, to understand WHY they derived their ideas, and then compare their arguments, to understand HOW their logic makes sense. Lastly, and most important, thinking comparatively gives us a chance to compare the different theories in order to see the weak and strong points of the theorist's arguments. After all, the strength in a theory is only proven by it ability to hold true amongst doubts and criticism. One can look at how many times Aristotle or Weber’s theories have been refuted and which points are the most controversial. In the end, politics can only be truly understood by our ability to recognize a political theory and effectively understand how they’re true or under what pretense they are false.