In light of the verbal sparring over the correct procedure for righting the errant American economy, I think it is beneficial to point out which are good reasons for holding a particular political position, and which are bad reasons. The title of this post foreshadows my conclusion rather obviously, but I will explain myself more expansively promptly.

First, I’ll explain a sort of metaphilosophical method that drives my position here. In a philosophy, one is (usually) faced with a decision either to stock one’s theory with primitive concepts (i.e., concepts for which there is no definition in terms of more basic concepts) or posit a more diverse ontology (i.e., have  more “furniture” in the universe). There seems to be an inverse relation between the two: the more primitives you have, the simpler the ontology; the richer the ontology, the fewer primitives you require.

David Lewis (1941-2001) was famous for a theory called modal realism, which was notoriously ontologically profligate. That is too say, there was a lot of stuff in his universe. Our idea of a possible way things could have been, could be now or could yet be (call these arrangements “possible worlds”) is underpinned by an infinite set of concrete possible worlds. These possible worlds are what make counter-factual statements (i.e., statements about the way things could have been/could be/could yet be, but aren’t) true or false. In saying that these worlds were concrete, Lewis was saying that they existed in the same way that our world exists. (Keep in mind that “world” here does not “mean” planet, but something more like “universe”: possible worlds cannot be traveled to from one another as they are not spatio-temporally removed for each other.) Now, this theory is seen as an egregious flaunting of ontological parsimony which philosophical theories are supposed to respect. (Occam’s Razor: do not multiply entities beyond necessity.) Lewis conceded this, but countered by claiming that his theory, while positing a large number of entities, did not posit many types of entities. Indeed, Lewis said that the only types of things his theory required were types of things that most people would agree to posit anyhow. Further, Lewis’ theory did not need many primitive concepts (relatively speaking): i.e., most complex concepts could be analyzed in terms of possible worlds and their associated logical machinery. This is a very rough sketch of Lewis’ theory, but it will serve to illustrate my point, I think.

In choosing a political position, we might opt for going heavy on the ideology. This would involve invoking lots of “obvious” or “self-evident” so-called truths about morality, human nature, politics etc. An ideologue, asked why he/she had taken a particular course of action, would cite more abstract reasons (principles, if you will). Explanations in terms of real-world mechanics, empirical data and the like would be secondary and ad hoc. On the other hand, we could be primarily practical, and cite nothing but data and feed it into an extremely thin concept of human flourishing (along the lines of subsistence) and co-operation (pure non-interference). Any cohesion with substantial ideals would be icing on the cake, and would be desirable only insofar as it promoted survival and non-interference.

It is clear why no one can achieve either extreme: data and evidence with out an interpreting framework is meaningless and ideology which is not sensitive to reality is pointless. Moreover, it seems clear that being close to either extreme is not advisable either. The question is whether your ideology should do more of the work of directing action and interpreting data, or whether data should be able to have profound effects on your ideology. This is a difference between being more top-down oriented, or bottom-up oriented, respectively.

As far as I can tell, the loudest politicians and wonks are top-down, opting for ideology heavy positions. Ask them why you should take their view and they are liable to give you heavy-handed answers concerning irreducible concepts like “dignity”, “morality”, “tradition” and the like. These are the people that should be largely ignored. Now, others may give you the same advice as these hard-liners, but they will have arrived at their positions through more down to earth means, and can tell you why they’re right (or at least give a good defense).

To bring this into context, in the debate over the economic stimulus, don’t listen to anyone who doesn’t have anything better than buzz words and outmoded economic mantras. Look for reports, analyses, etc. Now, given the scale and multi-faceted nature of what’s going on, even people with models and reports have little clue what is going on–but I’d rather grope in the dark with a dim bulb than none at all.

John- Logic and practicality is severely lacking in Washington. Pres. Obama was supposed to bring those two things to Washington, but all we have seen so far is the same old rhetoric from both parties. The democrats want to spend and the Republicans want tax cuts. That sounds like every debate in I have ever heard. Until we enact term limits in congress and force turn over of people and ideas we will continue to re-hash the same old arguments infinitum.

If you would like a good break down of where your tax money is going, please see this article in the Washington Post.

I usually pay no mind to forwards but this was forwarded to me and the article is from Bloomberg.com so it sounds credible and extremely scarey. It’s about new healthcare provsions in the “stimulus” bill.