Falsifiability, as defined by the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
All scientific models must be testable and falsifiable. In other words even the best and most elegant scientific models must be subject to being proven wrong by experimental or observational data. – What is Science?
Doesn’t an ideology consist of at least the following two things: 1) a set of assumptions about the way the world works, i.e., about what IS, and 2) based on those assumptions, a set of assertions about the way it should work, i.e., about what OUGHT to be?
Isn’t the first of those a hypothesis?
Doesn’t his next book do exactly that? Isn’t his “third story” essentially identify which of those assertions and assumptions are false, and which are true?
Aren’t the Grand Narratives of liberalism and conservatism hypotheses? Or at a minimum, can’t they be written more crisply such that they are hypotheses?
I am highly confident that if say, Jerry Z. Muller’s “hypothesis” of conservatism (the first chapter of his book Conservatism), and an equivalent hypotheses of liberalism – like maybe that of Rawls – each were to be tested, conservatism would be found to be more right than wrong, and liberalism more wrong than right.