David Deutsch on Brexit and Error Correction
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июл 2024
- Contents:
0:00 Introduction and a brief history of the European question
3:30 Karl Popper, Error Correction, and the First Past The Post electoral system
9:48 What makes the EU bad at error correction?
14:12 Political stability in Britain and how the referendum broke our system
19:17 Individualism vs Collectivism and the benefits of socialism to Britain
22:18 Has the EU prevented war in Europe?
25:08 Is the economy more important than sovereignty?
27:11 Don't we need top-down control for some things?
31:24 Should we have a second referendum? Is taking a political risk worth it?
36:25 Was the Leave vote racist? And what does it mean to be a patriot in Britain?
If you'd like to support the channel please see:
➤ PATREON: / joeboswell
➤ PAYPAL: www.paypal.me/joeboswelldonat...
You might also like to follow me on:
➤ TWITTER: / joebosphilos
➤ FACEBOOK: / clockworktinsoldier
Please consider supporting the channel if you enjoyed this! Must have taken me 100 hours of editing, this one... x
I'll donate for this one. By the way, don't break your back with editing. Sometimes natural, unpolished conversation is actually preferable!
But you know best of course. Thanks again.
@@rizlarich Thank you, Richard! I know, I know, but I do like a polished product, and I wanted this one to capture a wider audience and quickly. I suspect I could learn to split the difference sometimes...
It shouldn't have. We don't need a single shot of you nodding in agreement. Cut back to yourself only when you're asking a question.
So how do I support>
Another fourty two minutes of new fresh insights from my favourite living intellect today, David Deutsch.
Thanks for sharing.😊
Snap!!
0:00 Introduction and a brief history of the European question
3:30 Karl Popper, Error Correction, and the First Past The Post electoral system
9:48 What makes the EU bad at error correction?
14:12 Political stability in Britain and how the referendum broke our system
19:17 Individualism vs Collectivism and the benefits of socialism to Britain
22:18 Has the EU prevented war in Europe?
25:08 Is the economy more important than sovereignty?
27:11 Don't we need top-down control for some things?
31:24 Should we have a second referendum? Is taking a political risk worth it?
36:25 Was the Leave vote racist? And what does it mean to be a patriot in Britain?
(1/6)
I'm saddened to find philosophical ideas being abused as window-dressing for the usual Johnson/Daily Telegraph canards.
There's a moment of sudden but truncated truth at 16:40, about the referendum being triggered by "other problems", a euphemism for the fact that the electorate was angry about home-grown problems that developed entirely within the UK system and without any direction or interference from the EU (the deliberate and mysterious policy of deliberate austerity since 2010, for example). For decades, politicians on all sides used the EU as the focus for blame, avoiding responsibility for the effects of their own policies (16:55), and this eventually contributed to the referendum result.
How does this sit alongside Deutsch's position in the rest of this discussion? Well, it's nothing short of a complete catastrophe.
He aims to eulogise the ancient superior British system, on the idealistic grounds that it is an expression of Popperian principles. In his formulation, there is a party leader who represents a clearly defined, well understood position, and implements it fearlessly (over the wishes of any quibbling opponents), so that we can all discover if it works - in a spirit of honest evaluation and willingness to be found wrong(!) - and based on the outcome we can enhance or abandon it. Crucially, 9:30 - "This is how political knowledge is created". It should be clear already that this is nothing short of a fairy tale about a UK political environment that has never existed, but let's proceed anyway.
(2/6)
He concedes that the referendum revealed the accumulated failure of the UK system to error-correct itself. Can the blame for this be pinned on the EU *because it provided the excuse for failure*? Of course not. In the absence of the EU to be the Aunt Sally, some other culprit would be found, and indeed has been, over centuries. Even now, the Leavers are claiming that any downsides to Brexit will be the fault of the Remainers. A true account of UK political history would mention that parties are in truth themselves coalitions, which wear bold mono-idealistic clothing to disguise their shape-shifting nature. They game the system, often doing the opposite of what they argued, and then taking credit for whatever works and blaming the other side for what went wrong (this apparently even works if you've been in power for 9 years!)
This is demonstrably sufficient to completely avoid almost all accountability. Elections are won by engaging personalities, or by the public getting bored of the incumbents. Ideas are never tested in any way that allows a widely-held consensus. For example, depending on which bubble you live in, socialism has either been tested and has failed, or it has never been properly tried. Ditto laissez faire economics.
But meanwhile, alongside these phony "big concept" debates, much good work has happened, and so we got ourselves a sewerage system, and we have the NHS, and so on, and a great deal of that was in the details, cooked up in committee and compromise across parties. Obvious examples: Churchill supported the NHS and indeed the whole raft of Beveridge reforms, and Labour governments have instigated several privatisations (including much of the NHS). The Deutsch model of adversarial bold experimentation that tests passionately held positions, and then honestly accepts failure, is a myth, and this is so well known as to scarcely need saying.
(3/6)
18:56 "Parliament was being told to implement something they don't believe in". That is, the GE of 2015 (and before) had produced an outcome that contracted the ref of 2016. This means either: 1. the UK's own system of GEs had failed to be representative on this question up to that point (most people wanted to leave the EU and MPs had ignored them), or 2. the referendum result was erroneous (perhaps being mostly about issues unrelated to the EU). Or a mixture of the two, most likely.
So it is clear that his UK exceptionalism is ill-founded, but why does he cling to it anyway? Because he holds in his head the Daily Telegraph model of the UK's relationship with the EU, that the superior UK system has been undermined or even replaced by the inferior EU one.
Let's not live in a fantasy. The UK's contribution to the EU budget is £18.2bn a year, and I'm happily taking the larger gross figure (try dividing by 52 weeks to get the famous bus slogan!).
This is about 2% of all our government spending. We spend 2.8 times as much on interest payments on our debt alone. Also each month, the government varies the amount it borrows by several billions, and it does this on-the-fly in response to the shortfall between tax received and spending. That is, the government's budgetary uncertainty is measured in billions per month. So the EU contribution of £1.5bn a month is in the region of a rounding error.
Think of it this way: the EU system was "taking over our democracy" in the same sense that Rod Stewart is taking over our railway network. Next to the spending power our national government commands, the EU contribution is pocket money. Critics of the intrusiveness of EU regulations are never able to produce real examples, Boris Johnson's "kippers through the post" being typical of his careful mixing of hyperbole, exaggeration and outright lies. Defended at the time on the basis that, although obviously untrue, it was symbolic of a truth for which no actual evidence is available.
The whole notion of one or the other system being the "superior" alternative is itself founded on a misconception. They are not alternatives. They are doing different things, for different reasons, in different scopes. We were part of a club of sovereign nations, who were subscribing to some common institutions for our mutual benefit.
(4/6)
So with this in mind, lets pick out some of the more shameful Johnson-isms in the video.
28:40 "Countries which participate in [international treaties] do not usually demand political control of other countries". They certainly don't, and nor is that the case with our membership of the EU, any more than with our membership of the WTO. No matter what some voices in the EU might have wished for, re: a United States of Europe, we had a veto, and we had the right to leave. We've clearly proven we could leave, there was always a process for it, enshrined in the treaty: Article 50, roughly: "Leave whenever you like". The EU regrets our leaving, but ultimately did nothing to stop us. The idea that we were "trapped" or "politically subjugated" was a myth; our membership of the club required our consent, and when consent was withdrawn, we left. The delay was only necessary because those in the UK who argued for Brexit needed time to prepare their alibis, to ensure that if anything went wrong they had their scapegoats lined up and ready, in the time-honoured fashion.
26:47 "No one in Canada advocates that they should become the 51st state in order that they should get a couple of percentage points on their GNP." Same trick, but to me seems to be the most egregious use of deliberate fallacy in the whole video, precisely because it is disguised and implied so as to make the trick work more effectively. The UK's now abandoned position within the EU club was not the same as being a state of the US. Deutsch and the Daily Telegraph columnists may prophesy about how the EU would evolve in the future, but surely "that is a curse word in the Popperian schema of things"? (33:15) We had the power to refuse any such federal unification (does this even need explaining, now we've exercised that power despite having no actual reason to?)
32:09 "if there were a second referendum... people would then want a third one" - this is of course true, if you believe the second ref ought to ask precisely the same question again, which - of course, this is obvious - literally no one has ever proposed. This links neatly to the next quote:
32:46 "as soon as [Remainers] lost the referendum they should have transformed themselves into a rejoin movement".
But they did transform themselves, into something far less welcome to the idealist leavers! The referendum result was, in effect: "By a narrow majority, we want a different - unspecified - relationship with the EU to the one we have now". The time came to specify that relationship. So began the movement to establish what our future relationship with the EU ought to be. Two obvious corollaries:
1. The possibility exists that we might conclude that every alternative we can conceive of is disadvantageous, so remaining becomes more attractive again. How can that honestly be ruled out in advance?
2. We have no way of knowing which future alternative is the most preferred unless we ask. Consequently, if the first referendum ("What don't you want?") is valid, then a second ("Well, then what do you want?") becomes absolutely *essential*.
It's actually depressing to see the rhetorical tomfoolery used by Rhys Mogg et all, "They'll keep asking the same question until they get the answer they want!" being adopted here behind a fig leaf of philosophy.
(5/6)
And so what about this philosophy? Popper's reputation rests mostly in how influential he has been, but this does not mean he won the arguments, far from it. He is influential in that (for example) Lakatos was his student, but Lakatos took a carving knife to Popper's ideas about what science is, how knowledge is accumulated etc. Popper arguably came to see the flaws in his ideas in the 1970s. His falsificationism turned out to be partly just new terminology for the same old ideas, and is otherwise riddled with contradictions, which are on display in this video.
Can we accumulate knowledge? Deutsch sometimes seems to think so, via an unfortunate example: 24:18 Nazism was tested (scientific experiment, allows it to be falsified). The many millions exterminated in the name of bogus race "science" was, he implies, an experiment that allowed Germany to learn whether it was a good idea to commit mass slaughter. It seems no amount of rationality could have allowed them to reach this conclusion otherwise.
But as Popper has it, every event in politics is unique and "The fact that we can predict eclipses does not mean we can predict revolutions." Deutsch echoes this with his claim that using our rationality to attempt to make predictions about the outcomes of courses of action is foolish. It all might be different this time, so failure is unavoidable and the important thing is to try things and fail as much as possible. We can do no better. And yet 24:14 the Germans changed their opinion to "the right one". How do we know it continues to be right? The circumstances might have changed. If the people of the UK wanted to commit mass slaughter, is that an experiment we should try? I would hope obviously not, but I can't see how Popper acts as a consistent guide here. As I say, he is being used window dressing, but is quite irrelevant, because ultimately he both denies that it is possible to accumulate knowledge from which we can reason and predict, and yet also claims to have an explanation of how we accumulate knowledge.
The fabric of reality completely changed the way I thought about everything. In my book, David is the greatest living britain.
Three years on, the enactions of his principles that lead to Brexit, point by point, have failed this far. I await to be corrected, be it on immigration, foods and agriculture policies, environmental, our ability to take back control and hold our system of government actually accountable etc have all categorically failed. Failed. Failed. Failed.
Has David changed his mind at all about any of these things? This seems to be a topic he was fundamentally wrong about. It’s especially interesting seeing them talk about the UK being a beacon of political stability thanks to its unique political culture. Who could still honestly view the UK in such an overly flattering light after everything that’s been happening post-Brexit?
What a fantastic interview. Blew my mind quite a few times here
The most thoughtful discussion on Brexit, and the most persuasive arguments in favour of Brexit, that I think I have heard yet
Yes! I'm a huge fan of David Deutsch and it's great to hear his mind being applied to other things. Thanks.
Excellent stuff. really enjoyable interview. more!
Totally off topic, but thank god David changed his hairstyle
I liked previous one better... It had more... Body...really gave 'psycho doctor working on something suspicious in his dungeon' vibes... Now it's just... Basic
Great video, found randomly just searching for David. Thanks, @JoeBoswell. I’ve read all the comments and it seems to me that the most persistent “Remain” criticism is that DD should have argued for “Remain and Reform” rather than “Leave”.
In part DD addresses that in the very beginning, saying he might have voted Remain until he saw the result of David Cameron asking for reform and being dismissed. He also talks about the difficulty of changing anything because there is no one and no mechanism to enable and instigate such change.
One of the biggest complaints from Remain throughout the referendum and even after it had been decided was that Leave’s promises were all “unicorns”, mythical beasts with no basis in reality. Yet there was never a bigger unicorn than Remain and Reform. It simply isn’t possible.
My main qualm about voting to Leave was that the UK had helped make reform impossible by being the main nation to push for EU expansion, as a strategic idea to weaken the power of the Franco-German axis (that was too strong for the UK to make any reforms such as to the CAP). But that very expansion hard-wired the inability of reform into the entire venture. So in some ways it was our fault - we were partly responsible and then were slinking away having seen the disastrous consequences of our actions. But guilt is a bad motivator to remain in a relationship.
As DD says, only a catastrophic event/failure can create substantial change. It might just be that Brexit is that event. Maybe Brexit will bring about the necessary changes that prove beneficial for both the UK and the remainder of the EU? That’s surely what all of us should hope.
Great interview.
Extremely interesting! I can't believe I have only recently discovered professor Deutsch; what an amazingly clear-thinking mind - excellent interview.
I found this to be very interesting, im an Australian, we have the Westminster system as well, i watched this because i like David and have been impressed with his way of looking at things, i probably would have been in the Stay camp but im interested in why people made their decision.This is a fascinating conversation, good one.👍☮️☯️
People I encountered had many different reasons for their decisions, Richard. What I found fascinating was the PR by pro/anti-Brexit camps who defined the opposition's arguments, but those issues weren't necessarily the ones people would mention when I spoke to them as individuals.
Fantastic talk, agree with almost everything but what about Cambridge Analytica and all that stuff?
The interview format presumably didn’t allow for too much probing, but I did get the feeling that DD was allowed to formulate his views without much follow-on critique. It was as if he was thrown a supposedly tough challenge (eg on Brexit) and then his riposte was allowed to stand without much comment.
But I think at least some of his responses do merit challenge.
For example:
1
On FPTP vs PR: DD says that with FPTP it only takes a small shift of opinion in the electorate to effect a significant change in the elected government - with the implication being that the change in the elected government is typically in the same direction as the shift of opinion in the electorate. But take the 2019 election. 52% voted for parties who were at least pro-second referendum if not pro-Remain; 48% for pro-Brexit parties. That is a shift of opinion away from the result of the 2016 referendum. But the 2019 FPTP result was an unfettered pro-Brexit government, which would have seemed unlikely under a PR system.
He gives the example where under PR a shift in the electorate to the right causes the ruling coalition to move to the left. I agree that is possible. But equally the ruling coalition could adopt a different tactic and move to the right. As the example of the 2019 election helps to illustrate, essentially the same two possibilities (and presumably others) also apply under FPTP.
2
Joe’s challenge about EU and peace in Europe: Again I find DD’s response unconvincing. He draws a parallel with the so-called economic integration pre-1914 which didn’t prevent WWI. Isn’t there a world of difference between the shifting & unstable equilibrium between competing imperial powers policed by the British Royal Navy and continental armies and the current state of mainland Europe?
3
Trade with our closest geographical neighbour(s) versus trade with more distant partners: DD’s point about long-range trade being easier than it’s ever been prompts the question: easier on whom or what? If we’re not considering the global climate impact of long-range transportation now then there’s little hope for us.
Chris Lawrence, I certainly did my best to push back, bringing lots of counters in advance, and thinking on my feet where I could. I do have a few objections that only occurred to me afterwards e.g. on trade, isn’t Deutsch refusing to acknowledge a certain amount of brute politics? Large trading partners ARE worth more to the U.K. than we are to them, and can exercise political leverage for that reason. And so don’t we lose sovereignty to whoever we get into bed with?
On your No. 1.... I’m not sure it’s fair to compare elections with referendums like you’re doing. By that logic, the 2017 election was a massive swing towards Brexit compared to the referendum, because both Labour and Tories were ostensibly pro. But no one would say that Jeremy Corbyn did surprisingly well because the country had shifted to the right!
I think elections are a fair reflection of the country’s general political mood in a way that single issues like Brexit aren’t.
@@joeboswellphilosophy Thanks Joe for taking the time to respond. I wasn't intending to be critical of your questioning, but more trying to point out that many of his points could each have generated many hours debate - which would have obviously been impractical. I appreciate DD is super-clever and his delivery is quietly authoritative. But for this very reason I thought it was worth suggesting to viewers that perhaps his responses should be seen more as interesting moves than in any way conclusive arguments against your challenges.
My own counter-responses were of course also in the same vein and merely sketches of possible counter-moves. I understand what you say about the 2017 election. To be honest I deliberately ignored it because, despite what the Labour manifesto said, the effect of 2017 Corbynmania was such that, unlike 2019, Labour was able to take its Remain vote for granted, and many (perhaps even most) Remain supporters voted Labour in the absence of much realistic alternative. But I have no idea what the relevant numbers are like so it is hard to draw any conclusions from it as to shift of opinion. As I remember between 2017 & 2019 Brexit propagandists seemed confident enough to claim that 80% of the electorate voted for parties claiming they would honour the 2016 referendum result, as if this meant that 80% of voters wanted Brexit done & dusted. By 2019 it seemed evident (to me at least) that Labour was far less able to take its Remain vote for granted, hence (finally!) its more nuanced 2019 Brexit policy.
@@joeboswellphilosophy
Loved the interview. Thank you. Ironically the large trading partner who we are worth more to than they are to us is the EU - they have a 90 billion surplus with us. We have a surplus with the US
5:30 "The relationship between the people, government and state"
In ~1866 The Young Ottoman (as opposed to young Turk ~1908)
Namik Kemal said he admired the "Indomitable power of public opinion against authority"
of the British.
As an example : George III and his government (Earl of Shelburne) decided to conclude the American Revolutionary War (1775-83) by handing Gibraltar back (in a peace with France and Spain). But public opinion forced them to abandon the idea.
very much enjoyed that. supporting on patreon now :) didn't know deutch suported Brexit either. similar arguments to his video on AV v FPTP.
Thank you so much!
That's why i am for a European federation, which would have the "error correction" mechanisms.
Indeed, Brexit has created some hard baked problems which can't be easily error corrected
hasn't aged well ,the EU has proven itself poor at error correction mainly due to a poor understanding of human nature and the individual
Reading one of his books at the moment. While he is clearly an incredibly clever bloke, I've noticed he seems to make rather sweeping statements about cultural phenomena, which he develops into quite strong conclusions. Great clarity to his writing, but a bit out of touch with what certain terms actually mean in modern culture. The sciencey bits are great though :D
Eli's Personal thoughts:
It seems like these ideas depend on the effects of a policy being obvious. It would be nice if policy makers would preregister their expected effects (quantitatively) and the time by which they're expected to arrive, so that we could check them later. But absent that awesome intervention I don't see much error correction happening. Mostly its political bludgeoning.
I bet he has changed his mind re Brexit. He was unable to imagine a state of affairs with Brexit. A genius re physics, but naive re Brexit. I knew what would happen with Brexit. I was spot on.
Can anyone point to the precise quote that David refers to at 21:44? I've been trying to find it with no luck.
Very interesting discussion! If I understood correctly, the two main characteristics of a healthy stable political system are fallibilism and error-correction. The tools he prefers to embody those characteristics are 1st-past-the-post local elections and an adversarial party system. I think he's saying that the EU Parliament is less adversarial ("sitting in a circle" instead of "sitting on two sides") and more, maybe consensus driven, which leads to a forced stability that papers over persistent disagreements, thus leading to long periods of stasis punctuated by sudden shocks, much along the lines of earthquake dynamics. The adversarial system with 1stPtP leads to many more short term changes which release the tension in shorter, more harmless bursts, thereby avoiding cataclysmic, if rarer, shocks.
I hope someone who disagrees with that will correct me. I'm trying to figure it out.
I have a feeling that another component of the UK system that lends to this form of error-correction is multiple parties and the need for coalitions, instead of the US two party system.
I think his opinions of socialism, that the UK is unique in being able to go through a socialist stage and then successfully pick and choose aspects that work or don't work, is a bit dodgy. I think many countries in Europe have done so, notably in Scandinavia. In fact some would argue that the US adopted socialist programs after the Depression, though of course with the caveat that it was only by limiting them on the basis of race that they were adopted by the white majority, and that when they were opened up, during Civil Rights, to all races, then the white majority rejected them as "Socialist" -- thus allowed the white majority to make economic arguments (however weak) and avoid the cognitive dissonance of feeling virtuous (because who doesn't feel virtuous) while being racist.
I suspect that DD's not seeing much racism in the people with whom he interacts has more to do with the quality of those particular people and their adapting their speech and manner to him. But I could be wrong.
To sum up, from the POV of this discussion, DD's opinion on Leave has nothing to do with immigration, bendy bananas, prawn cocktail crisps, whether the EU is "democratic" or "undemocratic", or whether the big bad Germans are out to get us again, than that the form of EU government is less able to bob and weave politically, taking The People's opinions into account rapidly and (presumably) effectively to deal with Europe-wide issues.
[Maybe this could be solved, though without UK participation of course, by having EU-wide parties and letting various countries' representatives in the UE duke it out within and between those parties. But I don't know... I'm no political scientist.]
I think you have it mostly right. I agree with DD that you want fallibilism and error-correction but I'm not sure 1stPTP actually achieves that. E.g. a small issue change does not result in the government getting less seats - it has actually zero effect. Whereas proportionate representation does result in a change in the number of seats even though you might get the same government.
The UKIP party were campaigning for many many years before Brexit. If more power had been given to them early on, you could argue that these issues would have naturally resolved faster.
I guess what DD means is that 1stPTP produces fallibilism and accountability because it produces big changes not small changes. Okay so I answered my own question haha.
The only point I disagree with DD is his distinction between economic union and political union. They are fundamentally the same thing - politics and law all serve the economy. It is the same with the EU - e.g. freedom of movement and trade are not warm fuzzy political ideals, they are practical so I can buy bosche windscreen wiper and have it delivered in 1 day.
Therefore, after brexit, who shall we align our trade regime with and how shall we do it?
FPTP might be good for stability and decision making but ultimately it destroys democracy and rips countries apart. The only winners are the emerging oligarchy. ruclips.net/video/s7tWHJfhiyo/видео.html
@@benyaminewanganyahu The danger is when these two dominant parties become closer aligned you no longer have a democracy. I prefer the voting system they have in Israel. ruclips.net/video/27qtRp5-XVE/видео.html
His argument for FPTP is undermined by the fact that its existence has been characterised by the near monopoly hold of the tory party on power
Fantastic!
David Deutsch is one of the rare individuals who actually deserves the title, intellectual.
Eli's personal thoughts:
"So in the British system, with first past the post, the Prime Minister wakes up every morning afraid that something might happen that day, that will shake his hold on power."
That sound like it incentives the PM to plan and act on short time scales which is plausibly a more important factor than the ease and speed of removing policies.
I can understand his reasoning but this voting system (FPTP) eventually destroys democracy. For proof, all we have to do is look at America where the Democrats and Republicans are simply different sides of the same backside. A proportional representation voting system would stop this happening. Money given to citizens that can only be spent to promote candidates of their choice would stop corporate interests influencing elections.
@@higreentj Oh. I am not meaning to advocate for FPTP at all. But I find this particular argument for this alternative uncompelling.
@@elityre2710 What I see now in the UK is a country splitting apart and I blame it on the FPTP or winner takes all voting system. I was never allowed to vote liberal because FPTP decreed there can only be two parties Conservative and Labour. If we had proportional representation in the eighties or earlier we would still be in the EU and there would be no SNP. There is no doubt in my mind FPTP destroys democracy and rips countries apart. Watch America and Canada California and Texas will leave the US and Quebec will leave Canada.
A constitutional republic based on enlightenment values is the perfect system for all humans forever. We must embrace this for humanity.
Easily the smartest man I've heard of.
Smartest living one, anyway.
@@BrianMcInnis87,
You're thinking of David Benatar...
15:30 how stability is created by error correction
24:00 why Germany became Germany
36:00 how to solve it, and persuade people of how to solve it
38:40 who is on what side means nothing to what side is correct
41:20 immigrants often most appreciate the characteristics of democracy
3.20 ".... in Britain if you have a grievance there are mechanisms, you see your MP".
Just made me think about a million marching against the Iraq war
Love Poppers definition of democracy, beautiful
Indeed. Wonder if fishermen have thought of going to see their MPs to sort out their market access problems? 🙄
Good chat that one, as a cautious Remainer who recognises the validity of arguments from both sides I was useful. I wonder though what you are going to vote for, None of the Above?
It's an extremely painful one for sure.
@@joeboswellphilosophy and the Libdems are regressive left, their postmodernist trans ideology is full on, I think they imagine that islamism has nothing to do with islam, and the seem to want to do wealth distribution to families at a time when so many children will be those of non British people. The working and middle class have been abandoned and I'm scared about where this will lead. I'm a post Enlightenment secular Humanist before anything else, where is the pragmatic rational party who believes that necessity is the mother of invention? Should be Libdems...
Came from that Jordan Peterson Facebook page. Great video! Enjoyed it very much
I would like DD to comment on the situation as is.
Great interview, get David talking about creativity, evolution, consciousness and how all these are related according to his philosophy which lead to constructor theory! He's modest when asked about it, but is definitely confident it holds some answers.
Great! More from David pls..
A question to Joe: from the interview I gathered that you have been supporting remain but you also accepted David Deutsch's leave arguments. Am I correct? If yes, did you then subsequently change your mind and are you now supporting leave?
I voted Remain and I think I swam with the Remainer current for a year or so after that, but it was meeting a number of Brexit voters and attempting to justify a second referendum to them that made me realise how weak and how anti-democratic my arguments were. I couldn’t stand the violation of consent. It was talking to David that took me one step further in believing that Brexit could actually be beneficial to Britain.
@@joeboswellphilosophy Hi Joe, I agree with DD on almost everything and I think he puts forward the best arguments in favour of Brexit. However, there's one hugely important point:
He makes a distinction between economic union and political union when no such black and white distinction exists. They are fundamentally the same thing - politics and law all serve the economy. It is the same with the EU - e.g. freedom of movement and trade are not warm fuzzy political ideals, they are practical so I can buy bosche windscreen wiper and have it delivered in 1 day.
Therefore, after brexit, who shall we align our trade regime with and how shall we do it?
@@joeboswellphilosophy how is that going?
@@johnsheehy4824 I guess the vaccine rollout has been the biggest success story of a more nimble post-Brexit Britain.
That said, I have found the worldwide plunge into Covid-authoritarianism so depressing that any and all questions about the EU pale into insignificance.
I suspect 2020 will go down in history as the moment Britain cast off the shackles of Continental authoritarianism only to impose the Chinese model instead.
@@joeboswellphilosophy does the overtaking of Britain by 6 Member States in double vaccinations not show that the EU can do error correction as well?
Rely on systems, not individuals.
I was with him until those blatant generalisations about 'the rest of Europe'.
And Britain being 'famous' for political stability. I don't doubt the stability, but 'famous' is not an apt term in this context.
what I don't like is the seeming false dichotomy between representative government and the first-past-the-post voting system as it is in the UK. although the former doesn't meet popper's criterion, it is still better than the ladder. the ladder necessarily causes all but two parties to die, which results in two things: every voter can now only submit one bit of information with their vote every 4 years, which nullifies any possible advantage of popper's criterion. secondly, the established parties are much easier to be corrupt, since it takes a lobbyist to only pay two parties instead of 15 or so.
of course, there actually exist more than theaw two options. score voting for example fixes the two-party flaw of the winner-takes-it-all system, but i haven't seen david talk about anything else but the difference between the two terrible systems.
As someone living in the EU, I wonder has the UK abolished the tampon tax by now?
Politics isn't physics, which is why Deutsch's usual genius is merely him expressing the PPE that belongs to men of his age. I'd recommend he takes an interest in seeing politics through the lens of an anthropologist, rather than the neat abstractions of an ideal nation state. He might want to ask himself when it was exactly that Britain, the UK, just England even, was a coherent 'country'... Only when it was was conquering others / at war?
Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden all score higher than Britain (and every other country?) on democratic indexes and all are members of the EU.
So either the EU is itself democratic or if it isn't then it doesn't seem to infringe on member states sovereignty in a particularly undemocratic way?
On the other hand a smaller economy seems to have resulted in less options and thus less sovereignty to take advantage of..
very good
When this guy smiles....I immediately trust him.
Interesting how wrong someone so brilliant can be.
Interesting how you didn't provide any counterarguments to any of the arguments that he made.
@@omp199 I think arguments contradicting him are very well known by now. But, I ask you, is his description of how things work in the UK in line with the actual reality? He seems to be talking about how it ought to work and not how it actually works (which is not as good)
@@johnsheehy4824 Look, you are clearly implying that David Deutsch was badly mistaken in what he said in this video. A few people have said the same in the comments, but nobody, as far as I can see, can point to anything that he said that was actually mistaken. Don't airily dismiss this point by claiming that arguments against him are well known. Of course they aren't. David Deutsch's arguments are not themselves well known, so it is impossible for any counterarguments to be well known. Can you provide any or not?
@@omp199 3 things then. 1) it's not the case that anyone hid anything about the trajectory of the EEC in the 70s; 2) who do you ring in the UK about Chinese factory emissions; 3) has FPTP really led to sensitive competition between political parties, or have the Tories dominated government for over a century?
The EU, I thought it did a grand job educating the Brit, keeping the country from its more typical history of unending war and conquest. And I'd rather be in partnership with EU countries, rather than in thrall to fascist America
I had missed this. Brilliant stuff, Joe.
Cheers Jake!
Absolute no impact? At least one vote..?
How can it be said that nationalism never got a hold in Britain?
Nationalism or patriotism
@@aiistyt What is this? ruclips.net/video/vpEWpK_Dl7M/видео.html
@@GiveMeAnOKUsername This is nationalism in a cultural sense, not a political sense.
When responding to the statement that (say) one of the 'isms' was okay in theory but didn't work in practice, Popper would say: 'Well, if it doesn't work in practice, then the theory is seriously defective'. I'm paraphrasing Popper of course.
The first past the post voting system ultimately leads to two dominant parties which weakens democracy and eventually creates an oligarchy. I see the proportional representation voting system like Israel as far superior to the voting system used by America, Canada, and the UK.
Do you have evidence that two-party systems lead to oligarchy more reliably that PR?
@@joeboswellphilosophy America is definitely an oligarchy Canada and UK I am not sure about. Canada still has a viable third party. Jimmy Carter regards America as an oligarchy and wall street spent $2bn trying to influence the 2016 election. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy
@@joeboswellphilosophy If you look at US politics it is virtually impossible to challenge the two parties. If you watch this on the first past the post or winner takes all voting system then gorilla is very much like Trump. Scots vote SNP not because they want to leave the UK but because they see Westminster as corrupt. ruclips.net/video/s7tWHJfhiyo/видео.html
Proportional system in Israel has led to more than a decade of dealock
@@russellsirman5310 Israel does have a lot of political parties. If we look at the top twenty countries for COVID deaths then we have Canada, India, UK, and the USA all technologically advanced countries and all using the first past the post voting system (FPTP). Why didn't they stop it like Austrailia, Ireland, and New Zealand did? FPTP produces bad governments.
I voted to remain in the European Union, but would have voted to leave if the option on the table was the EFTA/EEA (Norway/Iceland) option. Nevertheless, I am ultimately unconvinced by Deutsch's admittedly novel arguments, and believe that he needs to look at the numbers. Firstly, while the UK system may theoretically be more amenable to error correction, in practice there is not much evidence of this. The housing crisis has lain unsolved for more than a decade; subsidies continue to be given to agriculture; successive governments have failed to tackle the social care problem; and the taxation system could do with significant improvement. All in all, there are plenty of domestic errors that, if corrected, would lead to economic growth being boosted quite substantially in the UK.
While the EU does have mistaken policies in place, the weight of the evidence suggests that we benefit, economically, from being members of the Single Market. If we were to leave the EU but stay in the Single Market (the Norwegian/Icelandic configuration), then we would get the best of both worlds, as we would escape from the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy, among other things, while benefitting from frictionless trade.
Johnson and Cummings, however, want us to leave the Single Market too, believing that Single Market regulations are a net cost to Britain, or that they will be in the future (given the promise of artificial intelligence, genetic engineering and genomics, as well as other technological developments). Yet, again, the most credible studies suggest that this is not the case. If it were the case in the future, then that would be an argument for leaving the Single Market in the future.
Eli Tyre also makes a good point about the First Past the Post system, namely that it encourages short-term thinking. While I agree with some of the Cummings agenda (transforming Britain), it's also ironic that an unelected bureaucrat is attempting to push through sweeping changes to the civil service, government and the economy. To whom can those who disagree with these changes appeal? Yes, there will be an election in five years, but that election will be held under a grossly unfair system, in which the only votes that matter are those cast by citizens living in a handful of marginal constituencies.
Some common problems that arise in democratic electoral systems:
1) How should we define who the "rulers" are? What if the politicians are just mouthpieces for non-elected agents, which they often are? In that case, removing politicians wouldn't change a thing.
2) What happens when there's no alternative to rulers? What if in two-party systems, both parties are more or less the same? Or in multi-party systems, the oppositions are too fractured to challenge the main party?
Interesting but I think David has overlooked the fact that political policy and economic policy are rarely distinct. I.e. in order to have a good trade relationship there has to be some alignment politically, e.g. product standards, and arbitration, etc. Most of EU legislation deals with standards. He mentions CAP and CFP, surely he knows the UK government sold most of the UK CFP quota to foreign companies? He also mentions immigration, has he over looked the restrictions that the UK government were able to impose on EU immigration but failed to.
Having said that, he does touch on the problem that for too long successive UK Government's have blamed the EU for decisions they have taken instead of trying to persuade the British public of the merits of a particular decision.
The discussion on FPTP was good too but what happens when the system delivers a government that isn't representative of the population? This can easily happen when you multiple parties, a united minority opinion and a majority opinion that is slightly fractured (but largely united).
I also wonder what his opinion of the illegalities of the referendum? If it had been a legally binding referendum the result would not have stood.
I feel sad that Joe needed to talk with someone who believed in Brexit to uncover a feeling of patriotism, what version of us was living in his mind? I wonder if this feeling, which I have seen often, was instilled by a deliberate effort or a lack of gratefulness repeated until gratitude for being British was replaced by distain or shame. There is something to look into here, I notice it far too regularly amongst some of the most educated of people, and, most sadly, in the young.
Excellent video though.
I received a lovely e-mail from a friend of David's this evening in which she meditates on this question. She suggests this may be a side-effect of what is best about the Anglosphere, namely it's relentless self-criticism in pursuit of improvement. We've definitely reached some kind of tipping point, however, as self-criticism becomes self-hatred.
@@joeboswellphilosophy I think something like that has happened, but I'm glad people like you are thinking on it. Pride may be a little far, but we do need to recover some kind of national spirit - something I truly hope & believe Brexit will help to deliver.
We are a wonderful country which has given much to the world, I just wish the education sector believed this too. Deconstructionism has been so popular for so long that we're taking hammers to the foundations now. This isn't criticism from a friend but vandalism from someone who wishes to bring the whole structure down.
I'm not sure what you do (this is the first video of yours I've seen and haven't googled you or anything), but I see bookcases and wooden paneling in the background, so if you are a part of our instituitions could you please try to help steer in a more positive direction for the rest of us? Thanks!
Coulter I tried to join the academy in 2014 (philosophy of science at the LSE). However I just couldn’t afford it. I actually went to the first few lectures before declaring I couldn’t pay. I was mainly just excited to be part of an intellectual friendship group. I hoped I could maintain relationships with my peers from outside the university, but I was quickly disinvited from all the parties for doubting the claim “One in three men wants to be a rapist”, and accused of every bigotry.
This is why I’m going solo with this channel and asking for Patreon support.
Good news is I have recently volunteered to teach a history of Western philosophy at Katherine Birbalsingh’s Michaela school. Classes start in January (for free, but it’s a start).
@@joeboswellphilosophy Oh that sounds fantastic, working at Michaela would be a dream. Congratulations!
If you like I can tell you my little story in the education sector, please feel free to skip (if you do, it was nice to speak to you).
I went through teacher training in Scotland, to be a maths teacher, and it almost destroyed me. Every lecturer and book was Marxist (authors were largely friends of the South American dictators), deconstruction and oppression were the focus of our teacher training (one of the papers implied it was oppressive to impart knowledge because to do so required you to condescend to the student), the head lecturer had scratched the faces of Tory PMs off the slides (she "couldn't bare to look at them," which just seemed needlessly partisan), we spent hours discussing "what is child" (this is apparently the correct grammar for the theoretical concept of "child"), head lecturer spent most of the hour arguing against Locke's free speech formulation, we didn't actually tackle "how to teach children" for 90% of the course time.
Then we got to the schools, I loved teaching the kids, the staff were wonderful, but something was very wrong. Constant assemblies where the head teacher told the kids to "trust no one of [his] generation, for [they] brought the evils of Trump, Brexit & climate change," that the kids should "rebel against the system," and non-stop bullying campaigns (some weeks they hit a class of mine every day). The children had staggering gaps in their knowledge, I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to get kids to use the equals sign, they never had been required to use it (this included Adv Higher kids, top 12 at maths in their final year, when I called one of them up on just not using '=' she started to use it as a bullet point at the start of every line). The maths teachers were being used to teach art (they didn't have a single teacher left in that dpt), one day the classroom assistants disappeared (we ran out of money) but with both of these issues they were stil spending the £150k government grant on gender neutral toilets (the local high school near me has gone for open plan toilets - right in the corridor - which was a clever work around, if nothing else). The current policy is children may not leave the school until they have achieved a certain qualification, so there were 17-18 year olds doing their 3rd attempt at a maths course they will not pass (these kids were having years of their lives wasted). The hallways were packed with desks, because in every single class at least one child per lesson (multiple children in each class would do this) would have such social anxiety they'd need to sit outside for the full hour (I spoke to the guidence dpt about this and asked if the constant assemblies on "Mental Health" were in fact creating more problems - she looked very sad, and sighed "maybe"). There was a statistically improbably number of trans kids, but I didn't think they were trans, they were goths or punks, but with special protections, so we had misanthropes who knew they were protected in some way - they were very aggressive to the other teachers (one of them hit the head of maths when she asked her to take off her hoodie - but she was back in school 1 day later). Oh and there were a few instances of kids going crazy and throwing books or jumping on desks and screaming, for some reason this didn't disturb me as much as the instituitional craziness.
One of my mentors in the school was on the marking scheme board for the SQA, and it became very clear how the grades are being kept up. Entire topics were being moved to 'non-examined' so you could claim the kids were doing the same courses but everyone knew 2/10 topics never got tested, so all the teachers just taught the 8 which were. The marking schemes had floating marks for things like units (cm, ml etc.), so if I put the wrong or no units for 9/10 questions when I went to school I would have lost 9 half marks, now if you do the same but put the correct unit for that tenth question you achieve 100% of the unit marks (it is just one mark now, but it smooths out people being wrong and allows teachers to be lax on units, just like they are lax on '=' for the same reason).
And all this was going on whilst I survived on 2hrs sleep a night (so much writing and preparing slides), so I'm now a private tutor. I would have loved to have been a teacher, my dad was a teacher, but I don't believe in what they are doing in the schools, and I would have really needed to believe in it to keep going.
I worry for the future, we can't trick everyone forever, someone is going to notice the kids aren't coming out without any of the skills you'd expect, eventually.
Sorry I just vomitted all that on you, I don't think I've spoken with people going into teaching about it before and I just kept thinking of more horror. Don't let me put you off, most of the difficulty came from the university & the ethos of the school, the teaching bit is awesome (it really is, you get to pass down something precious).
I hope you enjoy Michaela, from what I've heard it sounds wonderful, best of luck!
Coulter, that is a comment of too many horrors to process at once. I feel its only saving grace may be the irony of a Marxist education that leaves its students without any understanding of “=“.
Holy shit.
I prefer horror correction. What damage this inflicted on so many actual people I know for no single benefit.
Error correction is impaired due to poor education, propaganda and a culture in which certain question's we are not suppose to ask, swim in a culture long enough it becomes harder to see.
A random new David Deutsch appearance.
13:25 Tell it to Isaac Newton.
David and I would agree that individuals can become effective self-critics, it's just harder, and it makes sense to utilise critical communities wherever possible. I also suspect Jonathan Haidt's point is more true of social science than physics where motivated reasoning is amplified by political biases and not just fondness for one's pet theory.
@@joeboswellphilosophy O.K., I don't think that's a point you should cut. As this video now stands, and as a record of Deutsche's views for future generations, a viewer would be led to believe he thinks science should always be a social process, period.
The arguments for whether the EU prevented war feel very 'grasping at straws'. While I don't disagree with David's arguments I don't see why they should be accepted instead. I present my own argument below.
The league of nations was the first attempt to prevent war through unity. Ultimately it failed with the withdrawal of a bunch of countries including Germany, Japan, Italy and Spain (all countries which would later form the Axis Powers).
The League later became the United Nations which is a similar organization with similar intentions.
After WWII nationalism was identified as the bad guy and European integration seen as the way to overcome nationalism. This, and other trade ideals later lead to the Paris agreement which would lay the foundations of the EU we know today.
Fundamentally, one of the intentions of integrating the countries in Europe was to overcome nationalism which was seen as a root cause of war in Europe.
Has the EU overcome nationalism? No.
Has it hindered nationalist governments ability to have poor international relations with other EU members? Yes. otherwise, why would all of the current rising nationalist movements be seeking to leave the EU?
BS man!
the claim of racism aimed at brexit voters is nonsense, uncontrolled boarders is idiotic whatever colour, independence and freedom to chose was the driving force
He should stick to quantum mechanics.
I think his biggest contributions (to most people) are his views on knowledge and progress in all areas, including politics.
There are a few comments here saying that David Deutsch should stick to physics. Not one of these commentators, as far as I can see, has made a case against what he says here.
So David Cameron making his typically lazy effort at getting a policy through, ie. When he went to Europe to get concessions, was a proof for the need for Brexit, considering we now know he was more interested in his Greensill grift at the time
This is probably the most reasonable case for Brexit I've heard, though I remain unconvinced.
felt much the same until he mentioned the rejoin party, which leaves me agreeing with him
Pretty creepy at the end. 'Oh golly, I hope nobody thinks I'm a RACIST !!'
Why does the subject of controlling who is allowed to immigrate into one's country based on their characteristics, necessitate an immediately linked mention of 'racism'? What is this 'racism' of which you speak? And relatedly, what is the 'nationalism' which you also seem to disapprove of?
One can be simultaneously scientifically brilliant and a politically credulous follower of current trends.
Of course, by definition, the UK has always been better at everything. Look at the current state it is in, and it proves your point, doesn't it! 😅 All because of its supreme electoral system! 😂 And look at the success of brexit!
With all respect to Davids epistemological insights, I think his view here on Brexit is totally irresponsable. European policy to maintain peace is not a scientific game proposing fallibale conjectures so that the best one prevails. The daily lives of its inhabitants are to valualble for that. No wonder that lying decievers like Boris and Nigel are all in for this gambling... I wait for David to change his mind.
The reason is that the scientific search for truth is very different from politics or governing a country (countries). The latter aims to compromise different opinions while preventing doiing stupid things. Beeing unable to compromise (following ones own THRUTH) can lead to bloodshed......
Oh my god! Was I awfully right a year ago...
He is wrong about FPTP.. The PM is not afraid, cos there is only 1 opponent. PR is more democratic. FPTP leads to polarisation of policies. We have evidence of this.. His intelligence has tricked him.
You cannot take someone seriously who (at about 13:00) states that "you can't find the truth that way" of all non-adversarial judicial systems. That's arrogance, Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism.
But your comment is the definition of arrogance, Graeme. Deutsch brings an *argument* for his position. You bring the *presumption* of your own correctness and the implication that any person who deviates from your view is "unserious".
You prove Deutsch's point, in fact.
All I've said about 'my position' is that I find this claim objectionable. It's an obviously unserious statement. I expect Mr Deutsch would withdraw it, if challenged.
@@potatoheadedsurprise It may seem "obvious" to you, within the confines of your own head, that Deutsch is taking an unserious position. But unless you can provide some rationale for your incredulity then no one will - or should - be moved by it.
@@joeboswellphilosophyIt is one thing to argue that a given system is better. I have no problem with the claim that adversarial systems might be superior (though I am not prepared to judge this myself). But if words have meanings and the laws of logic apply, Deutsch has implied that French, German and other non-adversarial judicial systems cannot ever establish the truth (on questions of criminal responsibility). This is untenable for obvious reasons. It is only this strong claim that I object to.
@@potatoheadedsurprise What are the obvious reasons as you see them?
100 years of Oxbridge Philosophy, Politics, & Economics Deans' explanations: err... in this instance; umm... I think; well...
Physics Professor: Hold my beer.
actually to contradict myself I don't agree with his cause of stability argument at 15:00 i.e. it's the institutions. Preceding the institutions, if you follow a Krugman/Stratfor/CaspianReport explanation of "Your geography is your destiny" the fact that the UK is on the European tectonic plate yet separated from the mainland, and is an almost optimum size and population for a nation of the last 1000 years has led to the stability of England, Wales, Scotland (and to a lesser extent Ireland). If you watch the timelapse video of the European borders for the last 2000 years we're clearly the lucky area and this precedes the establishment of the institutions in their modern forms.
Deutsch votes Brexit 👍
Joe stop showing how you nodding your head... show your self only when you taking. thank you
All fine, but why leave EU instead of spearheading a reform in the EU to have the error correction mechanisms. Why being selfish now after centuries of spreading institutions to much of the world?
Exactly. Staying in and reforming solves for all 28 nations.
Vladimir Milosevic well that’s the problem the EU doesn’t want to and is too big to reform.
@@johnallen4468 David correctly writes that problems are inevitable, but problems are also soluble. It's just about knowing how. Eventually a better solutiin tends to prevail. I see Macron raising the same objections as UK had, and now he is alone in it.
Vladimir Milosevic Britain has been trying for years but to avail. And has always seen as the trouble maker. David Cameron tried for over a year. but the EU was insistent it would not change.
He covered that when he talked about Cameron coming back from his talks with the EU with empty hands. I was a reformer up to that point but it was clear there was to be no reform
1.13: "...I believed what we were promised that there was no intention to turn this into a European superstate... purely economic union". When he said this I lost all confidence in his scientific thinking, as he had clearly ignored the evidence in the Treaty of Rome which, I assume, he had read before he voted in '75.
So you're going to stop reading his books and listening to his arguments because he is fallible like everyone of us?
Right! He claims in '75 they were promised just economic integration, but all the evidence of that campaign show that both sides talked about politics constantly, with the remain side then making clear that it was about closer integration with Europe, and people like Enoch Powell's leading voice on the leave side claiming that if we remained we'd get ever closer union. I don't get it. Over time did people just forget what actually happened in the '75 referendum campaign in order to claim the only reason remain won then was economics? The big difference between '75 and '16 was there was no debate about immigration at all in 75. It wasn't a problem. Emigration was a problem. That is what changed.
I am a Brexiteer! and as DD says, for me it was never about racism or keeping people out (or in). It was about taking responsibility for our own future.
It was about respect for history and the love of all the good (and bad) bits of British life. It was about sovereignty.
Arguing for and against things, that we then have the opportunity and ability, and authority to change.
To me, the EU is about central control, quashing dissent and disseminating the propoganda of fake harmony.
Wonder how he feels about it now
Finally a reasonable guy who can help Boris find the benefits of brexit!
I found all the nodding, hmm, hmmm, from Joe Boswell quite irritating, I'm sure there must be a better way to conduct an interview, without
constantly going back to the interviewer. I wasn't impressed with DD, he should probably stick to Physics!
There are a few comments here saying that David Deutsch should stick to physics. Not one of these commentators, as far as I can see, has made a case against what he says here.
The racist vote may not have been anywhere near the majority on the leave side. But it may have swung the result. 10% would have done it.
But if at least 10% of the Remain vote was - like mine - more of an instinctively anti-racist, anti-Farage vote than a pro-EU vote, I suspect that cancels out (and then some). I think you could well argue that there was as much scaremongering about British racism on the Remain side as there was about, say, immigration on the Leave side.
I was chatting to an Indian-come-British shopkeeper in Hampstead the other day who was proudly pro-Remain, and I asked him why, and he said "Well, I'm worried all these European workers in the NHS will leave for fear of racism."
But this isn't a racist country, I object.
"Well, of course *I* know that," he says. "I used to live in the North of England, and 0.0001% of people are racist. They're more racist in London!"
So why would these NHS workers leave?
"Because the Remainers keep telling them that the British are racist!"
Well then...
@@joeboswellphilosophy Make it 10% net and the point still stands. We need data to decide this, data which we will probably never get.
As for the scaremongering, the Leave side had 30 years of the Daily Mail.
@joe caterman it isn't a huge problem yet (since we're basically fine and prospering in the EU) ...which is why Deutsch, in my view, makes the case for, at most, reform of the EU. I don't think it justifies doing Brexit.
what difference would that make?
Ths is full of factual errors. Is it so hard for British people to understand the EU institutions?
Such a naive view of politics is remarkable from such an educated person. Seems mastery of one domain doesn't translate to others.
If you believe that there are errors then for crying out loud say what they are. Comments that say, "This is wrong," without any explanation are worse than useless. They just waste everyone's time.
@@omp199 Sadly we learnt during the referendum that explaining facts to brexiteers has no impact whatsoever. Typically Brexiteers cannot name one EU law they have a problem with. There is no party in charge in the EU? It's simply untrue. It's a democratic rule-based and transparent system with very specific competences. No the EU parilament doesn't have first past the post, thank God. Yes, there is a culture of denate and error correction.
@@DanielDunne1 You have not specified any factual error in what David Deutsch said in the video. Can I take it that you are unable to do so?
Whether supporters of Brexit can name EU laws that they disapprove of is an irrelevant question that was neither the subject of the video nor the subject of your initial comment. The fact that you are changing the subject does not inspire confidence that you can back up your initial claim.
The rest of your comment is just so wildly inaccurate that it would be funny if it were not so serious a subject.
But let's not get off track. Your claim was that this video was full of factual errors.
Either quote the statements that David Deutsch made that were factually inaccurate or retract your claim.
I am deeply disappointed. You, as a citizen of the
world, have already had experience with your
state in the past with the administration of large
parts of the world.
And don't bring up sympathies for the growing
together of the states of the earth to a community
of people. The world citizen of all colours and
races, who can entrust their fate to the most
civilized bodies.
As science shows us by way of example.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)