Only consequences matter

A fact only matters in so far as the consequences of it

Political and Scientific claims are different in type because only the former should imply (or suggest) action as a consequence... So a Political claim amounts to not much more than a statement of allegiance. So then, when discussing Politics it is quicker to discuss actions and the rights and wrongs thereof.

This is a good approach because to discuss actions reveals the moral and ethical concerns of the situation better than to argue Political Philosophy. So instead of arguing whether a person is guilty of the crime instead argue what the punishment should be and the rights of an authority to issue the punishment.

A statement is said to be falsifiable if contradiction is possible and testable (stronger) if it can be contradicted by experiment. Assuming a statement to not be testable, what then is the value of falsification? For example if Fermat's Last Theorem holds... does this suggest any important consequences? Perhaps it does but they are, as yet, unknown to us.

We can find many examples of mathematical (or philosophic) discoveries leading to practical implications... a new type of mathematics can improve a technological application. So can we make a distinction between physical or esoteric "proofs"?

Is testibility no different from falsifiability? ie Is a deductive proof in logic (mathematics, or a thought experiment...) no less valid than more prosaic physical experimentation? And if so, does that imply consequences?

Does the outcome of an experiment imply consequences?

This returns us to the question of Hume's guillotine: can we (or do we) derive an ought from an is?

A Political claim which then leads to suggested action would be an ought from an is. What justification is there to derive an ought from an is? Should it matter whether a person is guilty in deciding their fate? This is our mistake... we should realise that the consequences of an action are (best?) delivered "unconciously" - that a judge and jury will (or should) only find a defendent guilty if they have been angered.

It makes sense (unless we think that an ought should be derived from an is) that to kill an attractive child finds greater punishment than an old person.

Why argue is when we want to determine action... our needs are best served when our actions are "instinctive" (but not neccessarily impulsive). So instead of arguing points concerning what is ask instead: "wouldn't you prefer (peace)...?".

Or even "Why are you on the side of (aggression)...?". We should align our allegiances according to is rather than ought... to trust that good things will follow from a lack of coercion. That coercion does not need to be reinforced...

People give "facts" to disguise something which is nothing more than a tribal association.


6th February 2009