demagogue on 22/6/2016 at 09:13
Uh, methodological point: There are two kinds of public debates, expert/analytical and popular/rhetorical.
The first is rigorous but not accessible to the public, and if we're talking about technocrats in Brussels or their local "sympathizers", which is what "expert/analytical" is code for to a lot of people, local people are going to think they're lacking legitimacy making decisions by themselves without public input -- there's some kind of vague distrust -- even if their stats are good. They'll also get slammed for not knowing or distorting local conditions or opinion if not being outright hostile to the hoi palloi.
The second is accessible but seriously swayed by manipulation and methods that are explicitly barred from analytical debates because they're so misleading, emotional rhetoric, appeals to fear, etc, and any use of statistics is almost sure to be next to worthless because they're not used in a rigorous way. But again making decisions without any democratic input at all, you're not going to get public acceptance. So you can't just not have a mushy public debate either.
So you have this trap where you have to have both, but both seem almost carefully crafted to undo the work of the other. Any major public debate is a rope-walking exercise not so much in negotiating between the two as making sure we at least don't fall completely off to one side, and one ideally serves as the check to the other. Easier done in theory than practice, and it's not even easy to figure out in theory.
Edit: This is pretty much, incidentally, my research area, the negotiation between international expert bodies and democratic decisionmaking, and most of my case studies were WTO, EU, or NAFTA.
Gryzemuis on 22/6/2016 at 09:15
Quote Posted by Vivian
Statistics isn't proper science? Where the fuck did you go to school?
It is.
And you can draw scientific conclusions from statistics. As long as you know exactly what you are measuring. And you have control over the test environment. With large-scale economics, you have neither. The fact that loads of economical scientists will tell you that what they do is pure science, doesn't mean it is so. Large-scale economic science is mostly about handwaving and making unprovable claims.
Physics and chemistry are true sciences. They gave us light bulbs, the propulsion engine, anti-biotics, transistors. And our lamps, cars, planes and computers work in predictable and controlled ways. Economic scientists know fuck all. If they would know something, they would be rich and not working anymore.
Vivian on 22/6/2016 at 09:17
Antibiotics are from biology, and what the fuck is a 'propulsion engine'? Also, the point in doing stats is that is it actually pretty much impossible to know exactly what you are measuring, or to have complete control over the test environment. So you use stats to estimate how likely it is that what you HAVE measured has any resemblance to the truth. They do this in your "true" sciences (argh, as a palaeontologist and biologist you have no idea how many times I've come across people saying stupid shit like that) and they do it everything else.
Gryzemuis on 22/6/2016 at 09:33
Quote Posted by Vivian
Antibiotics are from biology
Splitting hairs.
Quote:
and what the fuck is a 'propulsion engine'?
My apologies for my bad english. It seems the proper word is "jet engine".
I was just semi-randomly picking some results of science that are actually useful, applicable and predictably true. To show the contrast with the results from economic science, like: "if we increase VAT by 1%, everybody will have a better life". Or: "TTIP will be good for the european economy". Yeah, I know, the real result will be reports and papers and documents with lots of numbers and lots of detail and lots of predictions.. Very exact. Except that the results will always be different from what economists have predicted.
Some sciences study the past. That's fine. But just because it is science, that doesn't mean that those sciences can predict the future. Look at historians. That's a science taught at a university. (At least in my language in my country). Historians know everything about the past. But if they have to predict the future, they will be just as good at it as you or me. I feel that economy on a large scale is a bit like that. You might know everything about the past, but next week is a different story.
That is why I think all these "economic facts" have a lot less meaning in the discussion about the EU. We don't know how the EU countries would have done the last decades without EU. Nor do we know how they will do in the future, regardless of whether some countries are in or out.
Vae on 22/6/2016 at 09:33
[video=youtube;rNJ05NfM-4Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNJ05NfM-4Y[/video]
Vivian on 22/6/2016 at 10:08
"Clips taken from Brexit: The Movie - (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxf)...
Statistics from Dan Hannan's book - Why Vote Leave"
Gryz, all you seem to be saying is that you don't trust stats (and don't think the difference between biology and physics is worth mentioning...) and part of this is there are 'lots of numbers'. I dunno if that makes for much of an argument.
Starker on 22/6/2016 at 10:08
Wait, we're on the level of Alex Jones style of conspiracy propaganda now?
dickturpin23 on 22/6/2016 at 10:23
"The only people who believe in infinite growth in a finite world are madmen and economists"
Economic models and chaos theory modelling can only take you so far, as Greenspan and Gordon Brown found out in 2008 after predicting the end of economic boom and bust.
Gryzemuis on 22/6/2016 at 11:14
Quote Posted by Vivian
Gryz, all you seem to be saying is that you don't trust stats (and don't think the difference between biology and physics is worth mentioning...) and part of this is there are 'lots of numbers'. I dunno if that makes for much of an argument.
I don't trust people.
And I also don't trust numbers that are presented by people and interpreted by people to justify people's opinions and actions.
Again, the point I am trying to make is: the pro-EU camp mainly seems to want to stay in the EU because of economic reasons. They think they can make a bit more money. By giving up their autonomy, their democracy, their own laws, their own constitution, their own borders, their own future. My 2 counter points are: 1) those numbers are meaningless, because you can interpret them in all kinds of ways. Fact is that we don't know what impact staying or leaving the EU will have. It's a gamble both ways. 2) even if people would make a bit more money because of the EU, in my opinion it is not worth the downsides.
Starker on 22/6/2016 at 11:35
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
They think they can make a bit more money. By giving up their autonomy, their democracy, their own laws, their own constitution, their own borders, their own future.
What constitution?
