Definitive Answers to Ideological Questions

Question: Are theoretically informed analyses of empirical events and situations anything but opinions?

I don’t like to toy with abstract and metaphysical questions, so here’s my answer in a nutshell: If there is a definitive goal in a particular ideology, then it can be effectively proven or disproven. If there is a generalized or perceptive goal, then there is no “right” or “wrong” answer, and depends more on other elements to become a perceived success.

Allow me to briefly explain. If an idea is put in place, in a constructivist “social experiment” sense, and a specific measurable quota is set, then the idea can be judged by whether or not the quota is met in the time allotted. Suppose, for instance, socialism were suddenly instated in a country, upon the promise that wheat production will rise by 50% over the next three years. After three years of working with this system, if wheat production has actually risen to the amount promised, then the proposition has been successful.

Then again, one experiment cannot produce the end-all truth. This particular scenario would not “validate” all socialism; rather, it would prove that socialism under those certain conditions can produce that certain amount over that certain period of time. Plus, it may not take into account any variable conditions or other scenarios that may arise, or the motivation of the people involved.

On the opposite end, ideas without defined goals cannot, in my observed opinion, be proven or disproven. Suppose socialism was instated by the same means as before, but under the promise that it will “improve people’s lives”. This cannot be effectively measured, since one’s opinion of their own life is subject to personal perception and preferences. An overarching ideology such as this will never inspire a consensus, and cannot be classified as “right” or “wrong”.

Speaking of which, here's a bad idea that has yet to be proven wrong.