Mote and Beam

http://www.isthisjersey.com/news.php

 

This has a letter by Richard Murphy criticising a report in the economist. One of the statement he makes is:

 

More important though are the unsubstantiated claims which show this whole thing to lack objectivity. Try these:

Many successful offshore jurisdictions keep on the right side of the law, and many of the world's richest people and its biggest and most reputable companies use them quite legally to minimise their tax liability.

How does the Economist know that? The very essence of secrecy is that this is not known, and secrecy is the essence of tax havens. This claim could never be proven.

This does cut both ways. The logic of this position is that statements by Mr Murphy on places like Jersey being full of money laundering and tax evasion monies cannot be proven either, and yet he continually makes that kind of assertion, with just as much - or rather as little - evidence as the economist. One could well say that the essence of secrecy, or rather what is not known, is that it encourages make believe, and that depends upon who is doing the believing. It is the rorschach ink blot test; it reveals more about the viewer than anything else. A fallibilist (Popperan) approach would be to say what might be possible, give it a note that it is only one speculative outcome, and where there is insufficient evidence, make it clear. That is done by most modern historians (e.g. Hutton, Sanders etc), but the lesson has yet to be learnt elsewhere.

 

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? "