Leonardo Fiorespino argues that "[d]emocracy and butterflies are two very different objects of analysis". See his essay here for more: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/i-classify-therefore-i-know/

The crux of Fiorespino's claim is that "[a] butterfly is an empirical entity, whereas democracy is a contested concept".

But surely we can find instances in this world where democracy is not contested as a concept but the butterfly is! Furthermore, outside of "conventional democratic theory", democracy is often considered a well-defined, uncontested, empirical entity.

So where does this leave us? Does the contestatory nature of a concept somehow invalidate its capacity to be used in relation to a different, less/more contested, concept?

I don't think so. To me, clarity for the purposes of comparison is gained through careful definition and agreement by members of a discussion (discursive enclave) over the meaning of the definitions. That's obviously not an original position as it's been around for centuries. But somehow it feels novel.

What are your thoughts in relation to the above?

https://theloop.ecpr.eu/i-classify-therefore-i-know/