Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Dave Rogers]

Swap Brexit with vaccines cause autism 'controversy' if you find it problematic.

No. That I will not accept. There is a wealth of evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. There is a complete absence of evidence either way on the economic effects of leaving the EU, because no country has ever done it. Your argument is special pleading; you do not get to establish a hypothesis as the default because of an absence of evidence against it.

Dave

 

[MikeG]

........The evidence that vaccines cause autism is just as absent as evidence Brexit could be good for UK and the results of fake "skepticism" on the matter can be just as devastating.....

This sub-forum really is where scepticism went to die.

There is no evidence that Brexit could be good for the UK. There is no evidence that Brexit could be bad for the UK. If you think there is any evidence on what will happen in the future, then you have no idea whatever of the meaning of the word evidence.

 

[MikeG]

......you're just someone who doesn't know whether Brexit will be good or bad........

So are you.

 

[McHrozni]

No. That I will not accept. There is a wealth of evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. There is a complete absence of evidence either way on the economic effects of leaving the EU, because no country has ever done it. Your argument is special pleading; you do not get to establish a hypothesis as the default because of an absence of evidence against it.

Dave

There is plenty of evidence Brexit will be bad for UK, between the hard evidence of losses of European regulatory agencies and of Euro clearing on one side to the soft evidence of the government incapable of just grasping the scale of the problem, must less dealing with it, to indications of the rest of the world seeing Brexit as an opportunity to rip UK off, since the country is weak and desperate. Read the three threads on it for multiple examples. Against this are vague promises of "a global Britain" that has to renegotiate literately hundreds of treaties first just to the point of how open it is today, as member of the EU, the just over 5 billion pounds paid to EU annually and ... not much else, really.

I do agree the case is not as strong as with vaccines because the claims about vaccines are far easier to test, but that's the most you can say. The case is not as strong, but it is at least as one sided.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

This sub-forum really is where scepticism went to die.

No, you misunderstand that scientific approach can't be easily used in politics. For one, there is no way to make a controlled experiment, the sample for many issues is too small to make a relevant statistical analysis and on top of it all, many things really are special cases.

If you want to talk about politics at all you need to accept these first.

That is not to say that a scientific approach can't work for politics. It can, in fact I think we use far too little of it worldwide. However to claim we don't and can't know what the net effects of Brexit will be because we haven't had a statistically significant number of countries leaving the EU yet (even though we have volumes of reasons why it will be bad against nothing good) is just false, its fake skepticism at its worst. What we can't say how bad it will be, estimates range from not too bad to 1455-85, but no one is claiming we can tell that anyway.

McHrozni

 

[GlennB]

This sub-forum really is where scepticism went to die.

There is no evidence that Brexit could be good for the UK. There is no evidence that Brexit could be bad for the UK. If you think there is any evidence on what will happen in the future, then you have no idea whatever of the meaning of the word evidence.

While I understand your frustration with McHrozni's misrepresentations of your pov, I'd disagree somewhat with the bolded part.

96% drop in EU nurses registering to work in Britain since Brexit vote

One month compared to one other month, it's true, but with an existing shortage of NHS nurses I'd class it as "bad". I'd also class it as "evidence with a strong apparent link to the event known as The Brexit Referendum". Seriously - why would anybody go to work in a country which might be about to make plans to throw you out in 2 years time?

On a more parochial level we Bs reckon that a drop of about 20% in the value of our £/€ money transfers is "pretty ******* bad" and is most definitely linked to Brexit.

 

[MikeG]

It's the word evidence, Glenn. We have clues, maybe. We have projections. We have forecasts. We don't have evidence. Further, no-one on the planet imagines that there won't be changes. Some of those changes are likely to be for the worse. Some of those changes may be for the better. Until they have actually happened, no-one is in any position to say, factually, the overall net effect of the sum total of all those thousands of changes is positive or negative.Except McHronzi of course. He knows.

 

[wobs]

There is no evidence that Brexit could be good for the UK. There is no evidence that Brexit could be bad for the UK. If you think there is any evidence on what will happen in the future, then you have no idea whatever of the meaning of the word evidence.

How does economic modelling compare with climate change modelling as being classed as evidence? (Note I did not ask about their respective accuracy/precision).

 

[McHrozni]

It's the word evidence, Glenn. We have clues, maybe. We have projections. We have forecasts. We don't have evidence. Further, no-one on the planet imagines that there won't be changes. Some of those changes are likely to be for the worse. Some of those changes may be for the better. Until they have actually happened, no-one is in any position to say, factually, the overall net effect of the sum total of all those thousands of changes is positive or negative.

Given that the list of the possible upsides of Brexit looks like this:
-

I can say we're in a pretty good position to say which side of the scale the net result will be. Not by how much, but we can tell if the value will be greater than zero or not.

Except McHronzi of course. He knows.

It's McHrozni, not McHronzi.

McHrozni
(and not McHronzi )

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No. That I will not accept. There is a wealth of evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. There is a complete absence of evidence either way on the economic effects of leaving the EU, because no country has ever done it. Your argument is special pleading; you do not get to establish a hypothesis as the default because of an absence of evidence against it.

Dave

That's simply not true. There is plenty of evidence and sound analysis that can be done to look at likely economic effects. Trying to argue that we simply don't know and can't say anything either way is just another rehashing of the stupid 'what do the experts know?' argument.

Of course we don't know what the outcome of the negotiations will be so there is uncertainty and nobody has claimed clairvoyance. That doesnt mean you cant look at likely outcomes and effects.

 

[MikeG]

No, you misunderstand that scientific approach can't be easily used in politics. For one, there is no way to make a controlled experiment, the sample for many issues is too small to make a relevant statistical analysis and on top of it all, many things really are special cases.

And yet, you know......know, mind you, not think..........know, with absolute certainty, what the cumulative result of thousands of post Brexit changes will amount to.

......... to claim we don't and can't know what the net effects of Brexit will be

We don't and can't. We haven't even started to discuss what sort of Brexit we're going to have yet. How can we know anything?

because we haven't had a statistically significant number of countries leaving the EU yet

Strawman. No, because the future has happened yet.

(even though we have volumes of reasons why it will be bad

I'm starting to think that English isn't your first language

against nothing good) is just false,

Nothing? There isn't a single, single tiny little thing which would be improved on leaving the EU? Like I said, your views are those of an extremist. I gave 2 reasons, when pressured, earlier. You should know, because you quoted them out of context in an attempt to pigeon-hole me.

its fake skepticism at its worst.

********.

What we can't say how bad it will be, estimates range from not too bad to 1455-85, but no one is claiming we can tell that anyway.

Sorry, you're trying to talk to me about rationality and scepticism in a forum dedicated to sceptical thinking, and this bilge is the best you can do? Really?

Tell me, do you accept that every family in Britain will be £4300 per annum worse off as a result of Brexit?

 

[MikeG]

How does economic modelling compare with climate change modelling as being classed as evidence? (Note I did not ask about their respective accuracy/precision).

I haven't the first idea I'm afraid.

However, both are projections. estimates. Neither are knowledge. Knowledge is what is being claimed here by McHrozni.

 

[MikeG]

Given that the list of the possible upsides of Brexit looks like this:
-
.........

Only a one-eyed extremist could make such a claim.

 

[McHrozni]

And yet, you know......know, mind you, not think..........know, with absolute certainty, what the cumulative result of thousands of post Brexit changes will amount to.

Not my claim. I can say with the very high degree of confidence whether the sign with be a plus or a minus and it's a minus. I can say with a moderate degree of confidence the value will also be significant.

Strawman. No, because the future has happened yet.

I'm starting to think that English isn't your first language

You'd be right on that, it's not. Thank you for thinking it was though

Nothing? There isn't a single, single tiny little thing which would be improved on leaving the EU?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying no such thing has surfaced yet, a year after the referendum. I'm claiming ignorance, not knowledge, which is rather funny in the face of your other allegations against me

Tell me, do you accept that every family in Britain will be £4300 per annum worse off as a result of Brexit?

I accept that scenario as possible, not as certain. Why?

You seem to be unable to tell the difference between "a negative number" and "-17.447". I can tell a number is negative without knowing if it's -17.447, -17.448 or -374,996.

McHrozni

 

[Dave Rogers]

That's simply not true. There is plenty of evidence and sound analysis that can be done to look at likely economic effects. Trying to argue that we simply don't know and can't say anything either way is just another rehashing of the stupid 'what do the experts know?' argument.

That's not what I'm saying, though. My personal opinion is that Brexit will, on the whole, be bad for Britain, and there are plenty of arguments to support that opinion. But there is a difference of degree between the opinion that Brexit may be beneficial to Britain, in the face of weaker evidence such as economic projections, and the opinion that vaccines cause autism, in the face of stronger evidence such as medical studies. Equating people who are in favour of Brexit with people who believe vaccines cause autism is excessive and divisive.

Dave

 

[McHrozni]

That's not what I'm saying, though. My personal opinion is that Brexit will, on the whole, be bad for Britain, and there are plenty of arguments to support that opinion. But there is a difference of degree between the opinion that Brexit may be beneficial to Britain, in the face of weaker evidence such as economic projections, and the opinion that vaccines cause autism, in the face of stronger evidence such as medical studies. Equating people who are in favour of Brexit with people who believe vaccines cause autism is excessive and divisive.

Dave

Maybe you're right, the alleged link between vaccines and autism is much more testable (and tested) than Brexit is. Would you settle of 9/11 instead?

After all, we don't KNOW what's supposed to happen when a fully loaded 767 slams into a steel and concrete building constructed like the WTC. We have calculations and projections, but in the absence of a statistically significant sample of 767s slamming into buildings of approximately that size, load and type of construction, all we have are projections and calculations, scale models at best. That those show what we saw is what we should expect is not knowledge by the standard MikeG set either. Does that mean he's a 'fence-sitter' there too?

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's not what I'm saying, though. My personal opinion is that Brexit will, on the whole, be bad for Britain, and there are plenty of arguments to support that opinion. But there is a difference of degree between the opinion that Brexit may be beneficial to Britain, in the face of weaker evidence such as economic projections, and the opinion that vaccines cause autism, in the face of stronger evidence such as medical studies. Equating people who are in favour of Brexit with people who believe vaccines cause autism is excessive and divisive.

Dave

Well when someone says 'there is a complete absence of evidence' then that is exactly what they are saying.

If your objection was that someone overstated their position then it doesn't help to do the same with your own.

There is a wealth of evidence that leaving the EU will not benefit the UK and in fact that most, if not all the reasons given for doing so are a lot of nonsense. Right back to the £350m a week nonsense.

'Excessive and divisive' is a great description of the entire Brexit cause. As would be 'unnecessary and stupid'

 

[The Don]

I'm starting to think that English isn't your first language

Why ?

"Volumes of reasons" makes perfect sense IMO, book after book (i.e. volumes) of reasons

 

[Dave Rogers]

'Excessive and divisive' is a great description of the entire Brexit cause. As would be 'unnecessary and stupid'

Yes, I agree. As a result, we have this situation where anybody failing to state that they're 100% committed to one side of the argument is immediately believed to support the other side; half the country thinks the other half are traitors, the other half thinks the first half are insane. We need to find a way to move on from that, and hardening those positions is not it.

And before anyone starts making prounouncements about my stance being pro-Brexit, I voted Remain, and would be very happy to see a second referendum in which I would vote Remain again without an instant's hesitation. But I will not accept that anyone and everyone who disagrees with me is insane or stupid.

Dave

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes, I agree. As a result, we have this situation where anybody failing to state that they're 100% committed to one side of the argument is immediately believed to support the other side; half the country thinks the other half are traitors, the other half thinks the first half are insane. We need to find a way to move on from that, and hardening those positions is not it.

And before anyone starts making prounouncements about my stance being pro-Brexit, I voted Remain, and would be very happy to see a second referendum in which I would vote Remain again without an instant's hesitation. But I will not accept that anyone and everyone who disagrees with me is insane or stupid.

Dave

Are we talking about someone in particular here who has been called a traitor or insane?

I'd love to know what exactly you propose in terms of moving on because I'm not about to sign up to meet wrongheaded ideas halfway just so we can all get along.

If Brexiteers want people to get behind them then they need to convince Remainers they are correct with sound arguments and evidence - not rhetoric and jingoism. These sound arguments seem to be absent.

If pointing out those arguments are invalid, wrong or downright stupid is divisive then that's just the way it is I'm afraid.