Americans say, “USA number One, the Best Ever!” This would seem to be a meaningless statement from the point of political science. For example, you can claim the USA is better than Canada or France but there is no way to prove it. You can ask people in France, but they would likely say they like their country better. You can feed variables into a computer, it would give you an answer, but it wouldn’t mean very much.
In behavioral sciences like political science you cannot use hypothesis tests to prove all theories since not all theories can be proven in such a way. There are only certain kinds of questions you can submit to a computer for an answer by statistical analysis. Only material questions can be quantified and most theories, hypotheses and even most variables have a non-material component. If variable analysis shows Japan is better than the US, e.g. because of higher per capita GDP, higher literacy, lower infant mortality , lower crime rate, higher life expectancy, etcetera.., Americans would disagree that such a thing can be measured by variables x,y and z. After all, a researcher introduces bias when he chooses which variables to measure.
One might instead try comparative analysis or try using analytical categories, but this too fails to give us a certain answer. Let us say that a person says his country is sacred, and that materialism has through competition led the the USA to Spiritual exhaustion and empty values. GDP would not be an indicator of which country America or France or the individual person’s Sacred Country has greater wealth. . GDP is not an accurate measure of wealth even in a comparative study.
A country has a pleasant climate and natural flower gardens, how would you quantify the value of good nature? Or let us say I can buy oranges for 89 cents an orange, but to me I love having fresh oranges and fresh juice in the morning for breakfast and for its immune boosting vitamins. To me I consider an orange, like a tree, as a miracle. I never get tired of their orangey flavor. There is no way that a computer can evaluate a statement like what is the value of an orange or a sacred tree by trying find a relationship between measured variable x and y or component variables x,y and z, or through quantititative analysis, since these values are not just material things.
Variable analysis only answers material questions. But, if you say these questions involve subjective evaluations like, what is beauty? I would say beauty is a real thing that cannot be measured by variables x, y, and z because it is holistic or involves the whole person not just measurements of the length of their ears and nose or other features.
My answer then is that there are certain things that cannot be submitted to a computer or statistical evaluation for answers because they are indeterminable, they go beyond the human ability to quantify them, or they are not fully measureable quantities. They cannot be determined or quantified into a statistical significance by statistical methods.
Moreover, given a particular sample space where I say I have a 95% confidence that the answer is between two points ( you can illustrate by drawing two points on a ven diagram), that always means that part of that sample space is incorrect, thus probability is only a way of getting an answer.
Now let us take the Universe at the time of the Big Bang: we have 36 fundamental (subatomic)particles such as Quarks with very small masses, and they can assemble themselves in trillions of ways, supposedly they say by random chance, into a single coherent atomic nucleus of Hydrogen, which caused the creation of the Universe. But, no matter how many particles you have, even an infinite number before the Universe, the Unseen Cause is always only One- The Lord.
Theoretically, you can never rule out the Lord as a single unseen cause from any determination by relying on chance.
Thus- A Statement like, “The USA is the best ever”, is not a basis for determining anything.