One of the many reasons for riding an elephant in the Western Ghats of India is its proven effectiveness in protecting those astride against injury or death should a tiger attack.
We should, it may be posited not be unduly burdening or exploiting, directing such an elephant in Islington, because we have been told there may be tigers, given the terrain, given previous encounters in India, given the riders beliefs and even given the riders logically derived conclusions. Only "seeing" is and can ever be really worth the while.
Being forearmed is not at once arelevant, or an efficient reason for the directed use of public resources, especially if based on forewarning without fact.
In summary then it is better to have seen the tiger than claim the existence of tigers. In almost all cases one would agree that seeing a tiger is better for all excusing the tiger itself.
With evidence-based policy making we move away from "proselytizing prophets and visionaries" to proselytizing that which is fact.
We also move away from espousing logicians who proselytize based on their logical inferences.
Colonial traces still echo in the rationales provided for assumption-led policy making.
Our notion that the "brain leads" is reflected in the symbolism and structures we have designed.
The idea that an appreciation of fact means one must derive extrapolated assumptions or that one can use such evidence to support beliefs and attributions at once installs obstacles and occludes the arguably main purpose of societal governance namely the efficient direction of resources based on "what is proven to work best"
This view of knowledge as validating of assumption, a provider of cause and espoused effect, is one we must move away from.
The use of belief, attribution, values and norms in decision making must not be permitted to hold equal weight in discourse.
Of course this piece is aware of the assumption that facts are everlasting, that all will subscribe to one domain of knowledge and see it from the same angle, understanding and value at once everything the same.
Those who are mentioned above who sit on these beliefs, prophecies, derived and attributed facts are it appears prevalent and active in policy formulation today.
Rather like Humpty Dumpty, they are able to maintain a stable position atop, whilst their position is only as strong as the wall beneath.
All too often scrutiny of such walls reveals part of its foundation is belief masquerading as fact, some facts are attributed to support beliefs, some facts are related but others and their connexity are disputable or misaligned
So much like when one strips back the plaster façade, the structural integrity of what is the base is unstable. Humpty comes crashing down and such a construct is difficult to rebuild in the same way.
Others who have sat in this position have reached "dizzy heights" by proclaiming without fact then asking that the wall be built beneath them. Sometimes the facts emerge to support the proclamations other times the proclaimer must walk on water alone.
The absence or removal of further judgement, as reason for allocation or organisation, of capital is a reasonable request.
Judgement having then the singular purpose of feeding and so providing impetus for further and or additional research.
The removal of "claims" of "beliefs" of assumptive fatalistic conclusions which then search for validation and commission, attribute "bricks" on which to rest will cease to be seen as a rational method of advancing living standards through the appropriation of resources.
The bricks we use and the constructs we design, align are and should be self defining in that they shape "what is best" by their inherent validity and fit. Perfect knowledge of all research and their hermeneutic outcomes will also need to be inherent, implying the use of and access to such information would have to be permitted.
How we make links between facts and the method for its construction should be the role of Government.
Instead now, Government is more the managerial "cement" and less like the assumptive Humpty.
Then like "Cheops" we should also be willing to rebuild from a common base and tried and tested stages should society not be operating in a manner that works best by measure.
A glance of recognition at political and libertarian nihilistic approaches to how society is governed must be addressed at this stage but will be further discussed at a later date especially as the negation of "knowing" lies at the heart of this construct too.
This negation of absolute knowledge is the driver of this approach although this may not be at once obvious. It is when we assume to know that it argues difficulties have arisen. This piece is less essentialist and more argument at this stage.
This idea of the quiddity of "best for society" of course rest consciously on the idea that society exists without government, and "the best for society" can be agreed.
Policy would not engage in "vision" only "knowing" then "doing" then "validating" in a circular frame, where neither are ascribed greater importance.
No comments:
Post a Comment