Admittedly, I am skeptical of the ‘definitive semantics’ line of thought in relation to political science – with a system so largely contingent on the human condition, political theory based on (historic) observations are seemingly approximations based on the psychological condition of populous of the time – largely contingent on the era and the state of a all of the ‘states’ and their relative ranking, respectively. A dynamic, free forming and constantly redefining system, that, although does have seeming accurate applicable approximations, is not ‘statically typed’ or defined – concepts and driving forces are merely contextually relevant. Far more observational theory than evidential science.
Just as I do not feel that psychology is a classic science, I also do not feel political science to be a science in the classical static sense. Clearly observational approximations are handy, and do aid a great deal in conceptual explanation and comprehension, but are limited to that domain – conceptual, contextual, and non-definitive; to be considered for sure, but only in careful consideration of its relative nature and limited context.