Jump to content

Beyond Brexit - A new dawn? A leap of faith?


Aussie Rules
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, WV said:

I didn't mention public opinion. I mentioned scientific consensus, which is quite different to the bonehead on the street who makes up his mind based on YouTubers and conspiracy theories. "a rats ass" is about the least English thing I have seen written on here.  Abomination of the English language. 

Facts, especially scientific facts, don't need or heed consensus.  Consensus without fact is opinion. Science proves and disproves it's self as it moves forward.

The beauty of the English language is it's ability to bend and absorb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU was an uninteresting side issue to the general public as they got on with life as it had become. I doubt many gave it a serious thought unless it was shoved at them through straight bananas or similar headlines.

Politicians however had been disagreeing behind the scenes for some time, which occasionally spilled into the public domain.

Along comes a Tory PM who uses it as a political tool thinking it was an easy target.

Then the public were sold a lame, mange ridden pup full of promise and hope.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jacko51 said:

The British public had been fed a diet of anti EU propaganda for years by the likes of the Sun, Farage and Johnson.  The fact that they weren't discussing it on footbal message boards is hardly the point.  When you have people in Hanley telling you the day before the referendum that in 20 years you wouldn't see a white face in the city, you know that this anti-EU stuff has clearly infiltrated the thinking of a considerable number of the British public.

Seems the EU diet was not very favourable to the majority of the British public then.

Perhaps the Remainers fed everybody the wrong menu?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

The British public had been fed a diet of anti EU propaganda for years by the likes of the Sun, Farage and Johnson.  The fact that they weren't discussing it on footbal message boards is hardly the point.  When you have people in Hanley telling you the day before the referendum that in 20 years you wouldn't see a white face in the city, you know that this anti-EU stuff has clearly infiltrated the thinking of a considerable number of the British public.

Oh…..so you never had comments like that before the decision to have a referendum? Absolute bollox

Edited by philpvfc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, geosname said:

The EU was an uninteresting side issue to the general public as they got on with life as it had become. I doubt many gave it a serious thought unless it was shoved at them through straight bananas or similar headlines.

Politicians however had been disagreeing behind the scenes for some time, which occasionally spilled into the public domain.

Along comes a Tory PM who uses it as a political tool thinking it was an easy target.

Then the public were sold a lame, mange ridden pup full of promise and hope.

I agree with you, I better sit down!

except for that half the population didn't buy the lame pup and the half that did keep trying to sell it as a pedigree as not to hurt their fragile ego.

Edited by WV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, philpvfc said:

Oh…..so you never had comments like that before the decision to have a referendum? Absolute bollox

I don’t understand your point?  Are you telling me that the media had no influence at all over people’s opinions??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, WV said:

I didn't mention public opinion. I mentioned scientific consensus, which is quite different to the bonehead on the street who makes up his mind based on YouTubers and conspiracy theories. "a rats ass" is about the least English thing I have seen written on here.  Abomination of the English language. 

Consensus in science is irrelevant, what's relevant is data, theories and laws. if there is more than one theory to explain a set of data then the proportion of people supporting each theory may change as new data emerges. No vote is ever taken in support of one theory or another, it is the data which dictates.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jacko51 said:

I don’t understand your point?  Are you telling me that the media had no influence at all over people’s opinions??

 

Of course they did but what you said implied that suddenly people became racist because of the referendum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Paul6754 said:

Consensus in science is irrelevant, what's relevant is data, theories and laws. if there is more than one theory to explain a set of data then the proportion of people supporting each theory may change as new data emerges. No vote is ever taken in support of one theory or another, it is the data which dictates.

 

 

Data can be manipulated in so many ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

Consensus in science is irrelevant, what's relevant is data, theories and laws. if there is more than one theory to explain a set of data then the proportion of people supporting each theory may change as new data emerges. No vote is ever taken in support of one theory or another, it is the data which dictates.

 

 

Virtually every country has a scientific body that advises their Government on the scientific consensus.

Science is not done by consensus. Consensus is an emergent property. 

It seems to me there are a lot of people that deliberately misunderstand this when the consensus doesn't match their dogma. Doesn't really stop the world from turning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, WV said:

I agree with you, I better sit down!

except for that half the population didn't buy the lame pup and the half that did keep trying to sell it as a pedigree as not to hurt their fragile ego.

1/3 wanted the dog..... 1/3 wanted the dog put down..... 1/3 were trying to get a cat.

I don't think anyone had thought it through before the referendum. Cameron and the remainers thought it was a stroll in the park and I don't think the leavers really thought they would win.

That was followed by years of crap and division and nobody knowing what the hell to do to stop it or move it along.

It was a bad idea from an idiot who ran for the exit when the result came in.

It may have been a great idea if they had planned it first and understood the implications and complications of what was needed to see it through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, geosname said:

1/3 wanted the dog..... 1/3 wanted the dog put down..... 1/3 were trying to get a cat.

I don't think anyone had thought it through before the referendum. Cameron and the remainers thought it was a stroll in the park and I don't think the leavers really thought they would win.

That was followed by years of crap and division and nobody knowing what the hell to do to stop it or move it along.

It was a bad idea from an idiot who ran for the exit when the result came in.

It may have been a great idea if they had planned it first and understood the implications and complications of what was needed to see it through.

Not many countries leave major constitutional changes to simple majorities, either a 60/40 or minimum votes cast, prevents  unforeseen clangers. Alternatively as the Swiss do, 2 referendums,  1 to authorise a plan for change, then referendum 2 to authorise  the change when the implications are known.  As long as the tax havens are safe the schoolboys` masters don`t care.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Virtually every country has a scientific body that advises their Government on the scientific consensus.

HH, Give a few examples of a Scientific Body of say 3 major countries and show where they have advised a government on Scientific Consensus so I know what you're really talking about. Are you saying that once a government is advised it makes a decision on what scientific theory is right or wrong, if so that is ludicrous, it just doesn't happen.  It appears you're getting confused between Government Policy/Politics and the day to day workings of science trying to understand and explain stuff. 

In my lifetime as an Organic Chemist I know of and have used two major scientific Rules that came into being, The Woodward Hoffman rules of pericyclic reactions and Baldwin's rules of ring closure, none of which were decided by committee, Scientific Bodies or Government. Woodward, Hoffman and Baldwin proposed the rules which explained all the data from many labs around the world. Scientists still try and challenge the rules to this day.

4 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Science is not done by consensus. Consensus is an emergent property.

Consensus is a general agreement no need to complicate it.

4 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

It seems to me there are a lot of people that deliberately misunderstand this when the consensus doesn't match their dogma. Doesn't really stop the world from turning.

The dogma is that there is consensus in science, it only takes one person with one piece of data to show the  consensus is wrong hence why consensus has no place in science. If there is consensus in science the world would still be considered flat and the earth still the center of the solar system and I won't mention CO2 and climate change as we've been there before

Edited by Paul6754

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 28/10/2021 at 14:28, philpvfc said:

Data can be manipulated in so many ways.

Yes it can but in the Scientific community where people are trying to explain stuff through experiments, observation and hence data there are many checks and balances to ensure the data is reproducible and not manipulated.. It usually is in no one's best interest to manipulate scientific data although it can happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 29/10/2021 at 19:48, Paul6754 said:

HH, Give a few examples of a Scientific Body of say 3 major countries and show where they have advised a government on Scientific Consensus so I know what you're really talking about. Are you saying that once a government is advised it makes a decision on what scientific theory is right or wrong, if so that is ludicrous, it just doesn't happen.  It appears you're getting confused between Government Policy/Politics and the day to day workings of science trying to understand and explain stuff. 

In my lifetime as an Organic Chemist I know of and have used two major scientific Rules that came into being, The Woodward Hoffman rules of pericyclic reactions and Baldwin's rules of ring closure, none of which were decided by committee, Scientific Bodies or Government. Woodward, Hoffman and Baldwin proposed the rules which explained all the data from many labs around the world. Scientists still try and challenge the rules to this day.

Consensus is a general agreement no need to complicate it.

The dogma is that there is consensus in science, it only takes one person with one piece of data to show the  consensus is wrong hence why consensus has no place in science. If there is consensus in science the world would still be considered flat and the earth still the center of the solar system and I won't mention CO2 and climate change as we've been there before

There's a scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer.  If you really want I can dig up the names of scientific bodies that have advised governments on that consensus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...