Which is more important - purity of process or results? And "it depends" is not a valid answer?

[T Wolf]

[liberal N proud]

1. If you follow the evidence, process should be able to determine the result

[Warpy]

2. "It depends" is the only valid answer.

Think about it.

[mike_c]

3. context does matter...

...so saying that "it depends" isn't a valid answer automatically rules out the possibility of obtaining a meaningful answer. Context does matter.

[EFerrari]

6. That's a better way to put. Exactly. n/t

[phleshdef]

4. I don't believe its realistic to think that purity of process is even truly possible.

Results is all we got.

[EFerrari]

5. This strikes me as a false dilemma. Results can't be the right answer

yet a process can be triggered by an error or a fallacy.

[mmonk]

7. +1

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Purity of process, but not for mystical reasons

Purity of process is paramount not for the sake of process itself but because purity of process prevents the infinite ills that follow from people doing whatever seems "right" to them.

What seems right to Bush and to Obama are quite different things.

Without rigid process there can be no rule of law.

(I like court decisions that say, "This law is ridiculous as written but we are not mind-readers or a super-legislature. The legislature needs to change this law because we have no choice but to interpret it as passed.")

That said, there are occasional equitable exceptions but they must themselves be arrived at through process. Someone getting a three-strikes life sentence for shop-lifting a candy bar might appeal on the grounds that the penalty is so disproportionate as to constitute cruel or unusual punishment, but the appeal itself is made through a process created specifically because a given process is not infallible. But we want to avoid a judge arbitrarily throwing out such a sentence arbitrarily because the defendant is a nice person, of a certain race, has dependent children, etc. That kind of ad hoc intervention is usually undesirable because it is not available to someone unlikable, of the wrong race, etc. (And bleeds off pressure to change the un-just law. If only arbitrarily disfavored people get the mandatory sentence then few will advocate for the victims.)

[Ozymanithrax]

9. Does the end ever justify the means? n/t

[zipplewrath]

10. I'll presume you mean in politics

In my business, process IS results.

I won't subscribe to "by any means" if that's what you mean. The ends do not justify the means.

I know few people around here arguing more about process that outcome. The process CAN BE counter productive to the results.

In the end, it isn't clear what axe you're grinding.

[jody]

11. If the process contaminates the in-work product and steps don't remove the impurities then the

final product is contaminated.

Unless of course there is divine intervention that supersedes the laws of nature.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. In what context?

Because it fully depends. It is possible for the process to be the result, that is, the two can be the same, or the desired result of the process merely being the process. That would be in some contexts, my professional context that is very often the case.
The process gives birth to the results, usually, and so yep, it sure does depend. In some contexts, an absolutely pure process is required for the result to have any validity at all, to be in fact, a result. In some contexts, the result requires purity even to exist as a result.
In others, not so much.
Also on this 'how we use our words' deal, you give a modifier to one of your choices, but not to the other. That really does not work.

How's this, purity of process vs excellence of results. Or for that matter, purity of process vs purity of results? Your question is imbalanced, nonspecific, and seems like a silly word game about the notion of 'purity'. As defined by you. A definition not shared in the asking.
What are you talking about? Politics? Making meatballs? Playing the fiddle? Yoga? What the hell is 'purity of process' in this context? Demanding bipartisanship? Demanding Party loyalty? Closed rehearsals? Organic ingredients?

[haele]

13. A good process creates solid, validatable results -

Whether or not you personally agree with the results is your problem.
Results are just the outcome of the process. The purity of the process will determine the purity of the results - so by logical analysis, the process is more important than the result, even if you tweek the process to get the results you want. You will not get any results without some form of process to get from point A to point B.

There are always ways to take shortcuts to get the results you want, but to have an objective, measurable result, you need a solid, measurable process that gets followed - even if it's just a checklist and the person following the process has leeway to make subjective decisions and assume risks.

Haele

[gratuitous]

14. Sometimes the process is all you have

Because the results may not be apparent for quite some time. Or once the results begin to appear, it may be too late to do anything about them. So making the process as thorough as possible may be as much as we can hope for.

If this is (as I suspect) yet another Kagan thread, are you implying that there's something wrong with process, that we should just trust promised results?

[metapunditedgy]

15. These kinds of questions disturb me. Too many people think this way. n/t

[T Wolf]

16. Of course the context is politics - and the effect politics has on our lives.

Reading the responses reinforces for me the observation that too many here are too enamored with process - especially in "not acting like the Republicans" no matter the consequences (not enacting "good" legislation).

In the political arena, should the Dems have used every (dirty) trick to push their legislation through without watering it down to please the GOP?

Let's be even harder-edged here - if, by magically" causing the death of the four fascists on the Supreme Court, you would open up spots for non-right-wingers, would you do that? Is it ever okay (by whatever measure you choose) to violate one rule in order to bring about a positive (from your perspective) result?

For a personal (non-political) example - if you do not believe in killing (as some here do), would you kill someone who was attacking your child? Would doing that so violate your moral rules that you would choose to sacrifice your child to uphold your values - the classic "I would die for you, but I will not kill for you" attitude?

[Dr.Phool]

17. It Depends.

[KittyWampus]

18. "purity of process"? In politics you have opposition to contend with. The ONLY way to get to point B

from Point A is through Point C. Just like sailing into the wind, you have to tack to the side.

Purity has absolutely nothing to do with it. Although Constitutionality does.

[T Wolf]

19. The rethugs had no opposition to contend with. That is why they were so successful in achieving

their agenda.

But many here do not want the Dems to be successful - they want them to play nice with the enemy.

And we wonder why very little good has been accomplished in the 18 months while so much bad has been done, and continued.

[Tsiyu]

20. But it does depend

on one of my jobs, without "purity of process" the end results could look fine but actually be deadly.

At my other workplace, as long as there are results the process is not so important.

Or put another way:

In a court of law, not practicing "purity of process" can nullify any results obtained.

In the yard, however you knock down the weeds is fine; scythe, weedwacker or goats. Though the neighbors might complain about the goats' "processes!"