"In Principle" vs "In Practice"

[Mise]

What's the difference between "in principle" and "in practice"?

If something is flawed in practice, then surely it must be a result of a flaw in its principle?

Which do you see as the more important for an idea to be, good in principle or good in practice?

 

[Fifty]

When people use the saying, "good in principle, bad in practice", they generally mean "it would work out great if the (implicit or explicit) assumptions did not diverge from the real world in some way".

Obviously, good in practice is more important. And if you choose to use a more literal interpretation of the phrase, disregarding what people actually mean when they use it, then it is silly to call something "good in principle and bad in practice". Under the literal interpretation, to be good in principle requires goodness in practice, where we define good to mean a plausible theory or accurate picture of the world. Good can certainly also mean other things.

 

[Cuivienen]

Good in principle means that it will be good if everything else in the world is good, too. (Many things wouldn't work even then, so it's still a worthy category.)

Good in practice means that it will work even if some things in the world are not good. Obviously, being good in practice is more useful.

 

[scy12]

In principle = in practice unless the people that present the principle are lying or their calculations are wrong , unrealistic.

 

[Mise]

When people use the saying, "good in principle, bad in practice", they generally mean "it would work out great if the (implicit or explicit) assumptions did not diverge from the real world in some way".

Obviously, good in practice is more important. And if you choose to use a more literal interpretation of the phrase, disregarding what people actually mean when they use it, then it is silly to call something "good in principle and bad in practice". Under the literal interpretation, to be good in principle requires goodness in practice, where we define good to mean a plausible theory or accurate picture of the world. Good can certainly also mean other things.

I pretty much agree with this...

 

[Bozo Erectus]

If it turns out to be bad in practice then it was never good in principle to begin with.

 

[nivi]

"If it's stupid and it works, it ain't stupid."

 

[ybbor]

this reminds me of a quote about wikipedia: "the problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." -- Unknown

 

[searcheagle]

If it turns out to be bad in practice then it was never good in principle to begin with.

I agree with the statement that Good in Practice is better than good in Principle. However, I think we are being to harsh on "Good in Principle." Good in Principle and good in practice are not mutally opposed to each other.

Principles are overarching but often vague. They give you a sense of direction. Things like Free speech, Freedom of the Presses, Freedom of Religion, etc are all American Principles.

In practice, there are limitations on these principles. Just trying yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example. The press is held responible for Libel that it prints. Religion is not participated to harm others others.

When an organization needs or wants to change, it first decides the principle behind the change. Once the principle is decided on, the challenge is how to make the translation from Principle to practice. The thing about reality is that it is always changing. And if you want to evolve with those

So, in the end, Principle and Practice are not necessarily opposites. They are rather different steps in finding perfection.