Someone on another forum was saying you can’t, because sooner or later the evidence will conflict with it and then you have to choose between them. I think maybe it’s possible in theory, but not with any of the currently popular ones.
Of course it’s possible. It just means you have to adapt the philosophy to wherever the evidence points. There’s no reason the scientific method can’t work in politics.
ETA. Democrats do this, and get called out as flip flopping by Republicans for doing so. It’s not flip flopping, it’s acknowledging reality and basing policies on reality instead of dogma.
It seems to me that political philosophies are partly about means and partly about ends: partly about what kind of society you want and partly about what to do to achieve that society. And evidence applies to the latter but not to the former.
I think the OP needs to spell out in detail what “the evidence will conflict with it” means.
Besides, a political philosophy is not a rigidly mathematical physical theory. It’s a loose conglomeration of attitudes and positions. “Democracy” is full of conflicts: the Constitution was nothing but a set of compromises kicking the conflicts down the road hoping that some later time would deal with them. Does that mean that democracy is inherently flawed? Just the opposite. Democracy stretched and bent to fit the conflicts.
Without further deep explanation, the OP’s thesis conflicts with all reality as we know it. It’s provocative and yet meaningless.
This. A philosophy that assumes I should do something the vast majority of the time, but that there are definitely exceptions where you should do nothing or even the opposite, is still consistent.
Let’s take marijuana as an example. In the past, the political philosophy was that it should be illegal because it’s harmful to users and society. Now that the evidence is finally showing this to not be the case, some politicians are changing their minds about whether or not it should be illegal. It’s been a slow process, but some people are changing their minds.
Another theoretical example is climate change. Let’s say that strong new evidence comes to light that greenhouse gasses don’t contribute to climate change. If that happened, I think opposition to continued use of fossil fuels as a major energy source would disappear.
The person on the other forum doesn’t understand what political philosophy is and has a very poor grasp of logic. If I’m a utilitarian my political philosophy is essentially that government policy should be based on what provides the most amount of happiness to the most amount of people. If there is shifting evidence about what makes people happy then your philosophy dictates that policy should change along with it.
I have a political philosophy, but if some evidence contradicts some aspect of it, I will change. Any ideology that is immune to evidence is a religion.
The idea didn’t even make sense to me when I read a title. Why would a political philosophy be harmed by evidence? Evidence is part of how a political philosophy is formed–both evidence for what is, and evidence for what should be.
My best guess is that you’re assuming some very simplistic political philosophy, one where there are only a few statements and they are considered absolute, rather than guiding principles. But that’s not an issue of them being political. That’s an issue of them being simplistic.
If it’s just a way of saying no one can survive a political purity test? Sure, that’s true. But that’s because the whole point of a purity test is to come up with rigid standards no one can actually adhere to. At least, that’s the point of the real thing—people often decry things as “purity tests” when they’re more about making sure that disparate opinions are compatible within a political group (e.g. objections to Detrumpification).
Sure, there are a lot of idealized people who then see the real world and find out that things aren’t so black and white, that the world isn’t just, and that adhering to one idea to the exclusion of everything else inevitably causes problems. Life is a balancing act, ultimately, so politics is no different.
You can believe most of it.
No political philosophy is ever 100% true to facts.
One may be 50% true while the other is 80% true, in which you should go for the 80% one.
Agreed. To my understanding anyway, a political philosophy is akin to what one believes are moral principles - they are the axiomatic truths that are the framework we use to interpret evidence (assuming we do) and to what ends… A political philosophy defines what the goals are, or should be … evidence informs as to how specific tactics and strategies are working to achieve those goals
I don’t think there are in any real life that are only about ends. Quite often the desired ends are the same or very similar, but people disagree about how to achieve them.
Why can’t we have a political philosophy that is true to facts, though? It should be possible, just doesn’t seem to happen.
And I don’t think you should necessarily go for the 80% true one. It depends how important and impactful the wrong parts are.
I don’t know if political philosophy is the best term, but I can’t think of a better one. I’d say each political grouping has beliefs that are core to that philosophy, that define it, so if you don’t believe those you’re really not part of that group at all. Purity tests are more about non-definitional stuff, like supporting a particular candidate or having a certain position on an unconnected issue.
Could you give an example?
You are almost making a political philosophy out to be a religion, or something, here.
Which is the opposite of what a political philosophy actually is.
Do you have any real world examples to show us?
I was thinking of something like communism, or social democracy. It ought to be the basic idea each political party is organised around, but I don’t know what that would actually be for the two US parties.
I think the OP is conflating “political philosophy” with “political party”. And if not, the message board group to which the OP refers is definitely doing so.
The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are not political philosophies, nor do they have them, really. They are organizations aimed at winning elections for their Team.
The proponents of political philosophies themselves may not always be coherent or consistent in the face of events or evidence, but the philosophies per se aren’t intrinsically aimed at an outcome that would make them “sooner or later” at odds with reality.
It’s the difference between being opposed to (or in favor of) the Senatorial filibuster in principle and being opposed or in favor of it in today’s Senate based on who is or is not in the current majority and which team is most closely aligned with the philosophy. The philosphy itself doesn’t “sooner or later” end up in conflict. The people purporting to embrace it may. ETA: Even the politician or pundit who is intellectually honest and not merely opportunist in their embrace or rejection of the filibuster has reached the conclusion from their own interpretation of the philosphy. The conclusion isn’t a part of the philosphy.
A political philosophy doesn’t itself hold any facts or any political conclusions. The latter are derived from them and someone holding the same political philosphy could differ in opinion — in the abstract if not in the political environment of any particular day’s debates.
I think you can, for the most part. Support political party? That’s a bit different like AHunter3’s post summarizes well.
I know they aren’t political philosophies themselves, but I kind of thought they must have some kind of guiding principles rather than simply being names for sides… maybe not.
I’m not sure we’ve talking about the same thing. It’s hard to discuss sensibly without knowing the right terms, or if appropriate words even exist.
Well, a certain kind of conservative political philosophy might have the tenet “It is not good for our political bodies to shift the impact of political bills they pass with every fluctuation in the elections. We need dampening provisions so that shifts in social attitudes are spread out over periods of time and not immediately reflected as the outcome of momentary passions”.
That is not an endorsement of the filibuster. It is not an endorsement of having 1/3 of the Senate up for reelection every two years instead of the whole body being up for grabs. You could derive a support for either one from the political philosphy though.