They're more like interpretative theories than scientific theories. Different kind of thing. Their validity is in that they seem to pattern-match to a lot of ex

They're more like interpretative theories than scientific theories. Different kind of thing. Their validity is in that they seem to pattern-match to a lot of experience, so the only test is really "do they ring true?"; there's not a sense in which they would be scientifically testable. (well- I should say, this is how I feel about how the high-level impression of Girard's ideas, like the notion of mimetic desire in this article. I haven't read him so I dunno about his actual takes; maybe they're more concrete and therefore falsifiable. For instance the actually detailed scapegoat theory, which I have heard about elsewhere, seems obviously silly to me.)