Vivian on 22/6/2016 at 11:36
No, I want to stay in because the downsides to staying that you are talking about are pretty much all fantasy. So I would need good reasons to leave, and I haven't heard any yet. You are simplifying the opposing viewpoint into something you can defeat.
faetal on 22/6/2016 at 11:40
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
We all know the saying: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
"We all know the saying" ?!
I also know the saying an apple a day keeps the doctor away, but that doesn't mean we need to replace modern medicine with orchard fruit.
I am a professional scientist, as is Vivian (and he's arguably a way better one than I am) - and I can tell you that science IS statistics.
You simply can not separate real world effects from ambient variation without the use of the statistics. You can't just massage the numbers, because if you do, a statistician will identify this! This is why auditing exists FFS.
If we seem naive, it's only because you literally can't see an entire level of detail to this debate, so you think a pithy diatribe by a career Eurosceptic at the University of Oxford constitutes the breadth of the issues with the EU.
You're part of the problem - this surging wave of people who think all expertise is inherently untrustworthy, so we should pick the people who agree with our biases and ignore all resort to facts.
Neb on 22/6/2016 at 11:41
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Fact is that we don't know what impact staying or leaving the EU will have. It's a gamble both ways.
I don't see how the 'no change' option is a gamble.
faetal on 22/6/2016 at 11:43
As far as I am concerned, the whole debate for Leave was adequately summed up by Demagogue early in the thread: Real costs, imaginary benefits.
Generic Euroscepticism aside, I've yet to hear anything which derogates from that basic model.
dickturpin23 on 22/6/2016 at 12:24
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Vivian on 22/6/2016 at 12:27
"Those who would confuse themselves as to what they're arguing about deserve to be ignored"
Vivian
dickturpin23 on 22/6/2016 at 12:29
I'm not arguing for anything. I won't make up my mind up until the moment I go to the polling booth and put pen to paper.
Gryzemuis on 22/6/2016 at 12:31
Quote Posted by Neb
I don't see how the 'no change' option is a gamble.
Because the last 8 years have been so great ?
Because the future looks so great ?
Vivian on 22/6/2016 at 12:34
Quote Posted by dickturpin23
I'm not arguing for anything. I won't make up my mind up until the moment I go to the polling booth and put pen to paper.
You WERE quoting something that suggested our liberty is at stake though, which is fucking ridiculous.
Gryzemuis on 22/6/2016 at 12:41
Quote Posted by faetal
You're part of the problem - this surging wave of people who think all expertise is inherently untrustworthy, so we should pick the people who agree with our biases and ignore all resort to facts.
I don't think all expertise is untrustworthy. And I don't distrust science. I consider myself a man of reason (as opposed to being a man of emotions).
But if you want me to believe all science reports, just because the guy who wrote it calls himself a scientist, then you won't succeed. I've become very skeptical of people with self-proclaimed authority, or even self-proclaimed expertise. Because there are many people who are not honest. Or are just wrong. Or are just too dumb. Also in science.
So science IS statistics ? I don't agree. My field of expertise (computer science) does not use statistics to figure things out. We measure things. To find the truth. To learn how things work. But we don't do much statistics. Applied science might use statistics to prove things. But e.g. math does not. Math says "1+1=2". It does not say "1+1 is on average 2".
And about the worth of statistics. Do you claim that all fields of science have the same success in predicting things ? Imho if a field of science can not predict things, it's a different science than math, physics, chemistry, etc. Such fields of science might be nice to understand things that have happened in the past. But they're a lot less useful to predict the future.
