In present government, we often set absolutes in policy positions. These absolutes are claims of truth or natural law. When we set an absolute policy position, we categorically reject any policy that contradicts it. I think this is a bad way to govern because by rejecting as absolutely wrong certain things that people will do anyway we lose any ability to manage that activity. Our only response to a violation of an absolute policy position is to demand that everyone stop doing it. It would be more productive if we tolerate everything so that we can offer prescriptions for more acceptable or less offense methods of doing the same thing.
This form of government does not have a goal of justice for the sake of justice. The goals are to make the best use of resources to exploit the latest opportunities or to mitigate potential hazards. In its most ideal form, government by data will make and select rules solely on available data and algorithms. Inherent in the monotheistic religions is that the God does not interfere with man’s free will. Consequently, God does not provide data. Government by data is a very complete separation of church and state.
We now accept the concepts of data-lakes where the end analyst confronts multiple versions of the truth. These approaches forces us to understand data as being neither or both when it comes to deciding whether something is true or false. This is not a conquest of Buddhist thought over western philosophy. Instead it is real world challenge we face in dealing with conflicting data from multiple sources where each is confident they are providing the truth. Even when we do not explicitly invoke philosophical concepts in the practical consideration of data, our thinking about data is closer to the eastern way of thinking about truth than it is to the western philosophy.