"There's a special place in hell for no deal brexiteers."
— karl stone

I kinda like Donald Tusk. And that Jean-Claude Drunker geezer, too. This was a funny moment. — S

I'm kinda disappointed to get your post. Are we chatting now? Sharing funny youtube clips? Are you and I - like, girlfriends?

If science is truth, why do scientists contradict each other? If a scientific consensus is truth, why are scientific consensuses of the past contradicted by scientific consensuses of today? And how do you know scientific consensuses of today won't be contradicted by those of tomorrow? — leo

With regard to scientific method and epistemology - any scientist will affirm, that all scientific conclusions are held to be provisional in lieu of further evidence; but I'm not speaking as a scientist. I'm speaking as a political philosopher - using ordinary language, to compare two conceptions of reality. I use the term truth in a less than philosophically exacting manner - but am making a comparison between a religious, political and economic ideological worldview - and a scientific understanding of reality. It's thus fair to say that science is true, whereas ideology isn't true. Ideology is conventional.

For example, from the 17th century until 1979 it was true that the capital city of China was Peking. Now that's not true. It's now Beijing. But one cannot, by the same token argue that the Copernican system of planetary motion was not true - merely because it was superseded by Newton, then Einstein. Compared to several references in the Bible to the Earth 'fixed in the heavens' - Copernican planetary motion is true. Darwinian evolution lacked the mechanism for the transmission of characteristics from one generation to another - but compared to the idea of creatures created fully formed and fixed by God, Darwinian evolution is true. Not as true as the neo-Darwinian synthesis with genetics, that describes today's understanding - and maybe not as true as some future appreciation of how epigenetics functions over time, but true. The bacterial theory of infection - compared to evil spirits, or miasmas - is true. I could go on, but the point, I hope is clear.

If you take the sum total of scientific knowledge, it paints an increasingly valid and coherent, broad brush stroke picture of reality - that's true, and that matters. It doesn't matter if some detail changes as science discovers more. It matters that we understand rather than suppress a scientific understanding of reality, and that we apply technology responsibly, as opposed to applying technology as dictated solely by religious, political and economic ideology.

This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government. — karl stone

Just to be clear, those are the government's words, not mine. I would point out the assumption that people voted for reasons related solely to the proposition on the ballot paper, is patently false. The Leave campaign lied egregiously, and incited discontent on many fronts, and then funneled all that discontent into a vote to leave the EU, in the most crooked ever episode in British political history.

I guess the UK government does not know how representative democracy functions? — Echarmion

I'd have to disagree. To manipulate democratic processes in this way requires an exquisite understanding of how things work. For example, consider Cameron making the referendum a manifesto commitment, that could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.

We will not hold a second referendum, and second-guess the clear instruction given to us by the British people,
— Government response to the petition – “Grant a People's Vote if Parliament rejects the EU Withdrawal Agreement”. (see above)

It begs the question, if the instruction was so clear, why doesn't anyone seem to know how this is supposed to work. — Echarmion

Have no illusions, they know brexit doesn't work. A catastrophic no deal brexit was the plan all along. Remember, this is the party that opted out of the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty to create a low wage/low regulation jobs market attractive to immigration, that sold off council housing and refused to build more, that sold off all the utilities at knock down prices to their pals in the city, that subsidized low wages and high rents with tax payer's money - starving local councils and public services of funding, and refused to remove jobless migrants as allowed under EU law.

This is the Party that blamed Labour for the 2008 financial crash - that was actually caused by banking deregulation under Thatcher, and imposed 10 years of unnecessary and counter productive austerity. This is the Party that provided for the referendum, that had one foot in each campaign, and is pursuing a no deal brexit for the excuse it will provide to do the same thing all over again, only worse.

John Proctor; MEP - in the ECR, the far right European political party founded after the 2009 European elections at the behest of the then, Conservative Party leader - David Cameron.

The same David Cameron who cancelled an EU ID card scheme in 2010, while pledging to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands - "or vote me out" - who announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 - that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.

The same David Cameron who launched highly publicized "renegotiation" weeks before the vote - that was doomed to fail because his demands required treaty change, and who - upon arriving back in Britain, with his failure still fresh in the air, appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain.

The same David Cameron who kept Theresa May in position as Home Secretary for six years, while she screeched about the Human Rights Act, sacked the long term head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clark, let 660,000 migrants into the UK in 2015, and published those figures during the 2016 referendum.

The same David Cameron who appointed his aide Craig Oliver to oversee the Remain campaign, and recommended Oliver for a knighthood on leaving office, having made a pig's fucking ear of the case for Remain!

...thinks Donald Tusk's remarks are bizarre!

Dear Karl Stone,

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Grant a People's Vote if Parliament rejects the EU Withdrawal Agreement”.

Government responded:

The Government is clear we will not have a second referendum. We continue to approach cross-party meetings in a constructive spirit, with a commitment to deliver the referendum result.

The Government is clear that we will not have a second referendum, it’s mandate is to implement the result of the previous referendum. Following the outcome of the Meaningful Vote, the Government will approach cross-party meetings in a constructive spirit and with a commitment to deliver on the instruction given to us by the British people in 2016. We are focused on delivering an outcome which betters the lives of British people - whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.

Almost three quarters of the electorate participated, with 17.4 million voting to leave the European Union. This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government.

Parliament then overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act.

In last year’s General Election, over 80% of people voted for parties committing to respect the result of the referendum. It was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is its duty to implement the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered the referendum result.

The British people must be able to trust in its Government both to effect their will, and to deliver the best outcome for them. As the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.” In upholding that directive to withdraw from the European Union, the Government is delivering on that promise.

The deal we have negotiated takes back control of our borders, laws and money. It protects jobs, security and the integrity of the United Kingdom. It protects the rights of more than three million EU citizens living in the UK and around one million UK nationals living in the EU and provides a fair financial settlement for UK taxpayers estimated to be between £35-39bn, resolving our obligations.

We will not hold a second referendum, and second-guess the clear instruction given to us by the British people, but instead we will continue to focus on holding meetings with colleagues across the House, looking to identify what is required to secure the support of Parliament and ensure that we leave in an orderly way on the 29 March 2019.

Department for Exiting the European Union

This petition has over 100,000 signatures. The Petitions Committee will consider it for a debate. They can also gather further evidence and press the government for action.

The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee

Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament

I would have thought those on this site were above absurd conspiracy theories. — Tim3003

I'd have thought those in government were above absurd conspiracies - but we are where we are!

In a speech in Brussels yesterday, EU Council President Donald Tusk described brexit as:

"Following (from) the decision and the will of the UK authorities."

It's the third such intervention I'm aware of, in which he's speaking over the shoulders of our government to the British people. Another was saying recently, both in a speech and on twitter:

"There's a special place in hell for no deal brexiteers."

And the other, was relayed on BBC Two's "Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil" - when Tusk said:

"I told David Cameron, there's no appetite for revolution in Europe. He told me he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there's no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea."

What Mr Tusk is making clear with these comments, is that the UK government, particularly Cameron and May, were complicit in the corrupt 2016 referendum. I have been saying this for some time now - and it's really very clear when one examines the facts.

Cameron took the UK out a centrist alliance in the EU, and joined right wing anti federalists, cancelled an EU ID card scheme in 2010 - while promising tens of thousands - or vote me out, then dictated a referendum by making it a manifesto commitment, that could not be blocked.

Cameron was a brexiteer, who sabotaged his credibility with false promises and a huge, deliberate failure on immigration, and with a renegotiation that educated the public, but was predestined to fail - before appointing himself chief spokesman for Remain, and losing on purpose.

I get that reaction a lot. Don't worry about it - it's fine. It seems to me, that writing on a philosophy forum, you should be able to encompass and handle a contrast between the religious, political and economic ideological architecture of societies, and a scientific understanding of reality - without flipping out, and going all ad hom, but clearly, you're not a philosopher!

Instead, you're one of the people who need be afforded their illusions, even as scientific ideas are applied to direct the application of technology, to secure a sustainable future. The pertinent principle is "existential necessity" - which both justifies adopting science as truth, i.e. to address problems it's necessary to address for humankind to continue to exist, and at the same time limits the implications of science as truth - thus affording people like you your ideologically described identities and purposes. Because honestly, it doesn't matter what you think. Probably best you don't.

I disagree.

It sets out which acts need to be repealed, clarifying you were both wrong. Parliament gets to vote. It's not that difficult. By the way, well done on playing victim. — Benkei

Your link is a Bill - not an Act. It's not law. It's a proposal - the validity of which has not been examined by Parliament. A bill can say anything. Bills are often amended because they're not structured legally. Further, it proposes a course of action in the event of a referendum. That's not the question.

In the simplest possible terms the question is: Could Theresa May revoke Article 50 if she wanted to?

I say she could. Although not explicitly provided for, because the EU Court's decision only came after A50 had been invoked, I believe it follows from the grant of powers to invoke Article 50 - that there's an implied power to revoke Article 50 - given the EU Court's decision.

It's a theoretical question. I think I'm right, and it's quite likely I am.

Yup, that's what I mean. If you can't identify a single person who meets your standard of "accepting a scientific understanding of reality" then you have no basis upon which to propose that we should give human beings ever more power at an ever faster rate. According to your own posts there is literally no one on Earth currently capable of managing the new powers emerging from the knowledge explosion, and yet you want to release these new powers anyway. — Jake

Great. Me! That was easy. Sadly, almost everyone else is operating within an ideological environment - drawing their identities and purposes, their beliefs and terms of analysis from those ideas, existing between them, as if in a collective consciousness. It's thus very difficult for people to see beyond those ideas, to the scientific reality. But I've been doing this for years, and truly have tried to adjust my thinking in relation to scientific truth.

For example, I accept that humankind is a single species - which evolved on this planet, emerged from Africa around 70,000 years ago - and spread in all different directions. I see the commonalities in cultures rather than the differences - like for example, writing, music, art, architecture, agriculture, pottery, jewelry, and so on and on - things human beings do, only in culturally distinct ways.

I find this contrasts dramatically with the ideological idea of other peoples, of other religions and other nations, viewed as alien - because of the acceptance of ideological ideas in themselves, on their own terms. It's difficult, because people do consider those ideas definitive - and treat me as coming from a particular religious, national, socio-economic class group - relative to their own. I haven't encountered anyone who thinks like I do - and to be honest, I go back and forth. I'm not crazy. But it is a useful additional perspective.

It's good faith.
— karl stone

It is. See? Not so hard to admit you're wrong is it? — Benkei

You tell me. What are you admitting you're wrong about? Is it just just the 'good fate' thing? Because to my mind, that's the least of the things you're wrong about. I think you should apologize for your behavior, and stop trolling people - don't you?

Yes, it's precisely because this is a forum it is in good faith to take issue with someone pretending to know the answer when in fact they don't. That doesn't require me to know the answer to the discussion but here it is any way: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0306/cbill_2017-20190306_en_2.htm#l1g3

You're welcome. — Benkei

To begin with, your link doesn't answer the question. The question concerns the EU court's decision that Article 50 can be revoked, by whom - given the powers conferred by the Notification of Withdrawal Act. Your link has many of the same words in it - but is a Bill, concerned with a possible referendum, that provides, in the event of a Remain vote, for automatic repeal of all the Withdrawal Acts.

You've shed absolutely zero light on the subject, behaved like a complete idiot, gone out of your way to offend me repeatedly, and you presume thanks are due! You're not welcome. Not in the least. Stop trolling.

Backing Brexit will cost Labour more votes than Iraq war, leaked poll warns
Written by: Matt Foster Posted On: 7th February 2019

Backing Brexit would be more damaging to Labour's electoral fortunes than the Iraq war, a stark poll handed to Jeremy Corbyn's top team has warned.

ITV News and the Guardian report that the confidential document was sent to pro-Corbyn pressure group Momentum by the TSSA union, and has been circulating among Shadow Cabinet ministers.

It warns Labour that backing Brexit will cost the party 45 seats at a snap election, compared with 11 for opposing Britain's departure. "There can be no disguising the sense of disappointment and disillusionment with Labour if it fails to oppose Brexit and there is every indication that it will be far more damaging to the party’s electoral fortunes than the Iraq war," it says.

“Labour would especially lose the support of people below the age of 35, which could make this issue comparable to the impact the tuition fees and involvement in the coalition had on Lib Dem support.”

The party would also risk losing five of its seven MPs in Remain-supporting Scotland if it supports Brexit, the study says.

Amid calls for Mr Corbyn to back a second referendum, the poll claims that three-quarters of Labour voters would vote to 'Remain' if one were called.

It also suggests any new centrist party vowing to oppose Brexit could hoover up Labour voters, with 17% of Jeremy Corbyn's 2017 supporters saying they would be "very likely" to back a new party that came out against Britain's EU exit.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/101666/backing-brexit-will-cost-labour-more-votes-iraq

As a forum participant it behoves you to act in good fate which you're not when you're bluffing. I call it out. And you can pretend it was just a discussion between you and another person but it wasn't as you posted it in a forum which is a free for all for anybody to react to anything. — Benkei

It's good faith. And as you raise the idea, do you think wading into someone else's disagreement without a clue what it's about, like a troll - trying to get a rise, is acting in good faith? If it's not acting in good faith, and if you don't know, for certain - what the answer to the disagreement is, by both your own standards, should you not shut up now?

You don't know and it would behove you to act accordingly. If you don't know for certain and argue the way you did then you're not doing philosophy but you're just bluffing. — Benkei

It's behoove. And as you raise the idea, does it behoove you to wade into the middle of someone else's disagreement? What's it got to do with you? Are you saying you know how the EU court's decision that Article 50 can be revoked, interacts with the powers provided by the Notification of Withdrawal Bill? If you don't know, for certain, then by your own standards - does it not behoove you to mind your own business?

Or you can try not taking a position on a minor point you're running a risk of being wrong on and instead try to find out the answer by asking a question. Just taking a position whichever one strikes your fancy in the moment just makes you sound like a loudmouth that thinks his opinion is relevant on every (minor) topic. Just a tip, eh! — Benkei

Thanks ever so much for the tip - only to bring you up to speed, I'm not wrong. I'm in dispute with someone who thinks I'm wrong, but I'm not. ...probably. It would take vast amounts of research to settle the matter. I'm not doing that. You all caught up? Good.

Or perhaps you can not be so opiniated about matters you don't know the details of. — Benkei

I don't think that's likely. I'll gladly run the risk of being wrong on such a minor point of fact. It's almost inescapable. Can you tell me off the top of your head how the EU court's decision, that Article 50 can be revoked, plays out with regard to the specific powers afforded Theresa May in the Notification of Withdrawal Bill - not to be confused with the Withdrawal Bill, or the Withdrawal Agreement? Would you spend two days researching it, just to make some minor point on an obscure forum? No? Well, neither would I.

Yes, don't let facts get in your way of feeling righteous about how stupid all the politicians and Brexiters are. — Benkei

The point at issue is a minor one, hidden in the comparison of two lengthy legal documents - and it's just not worth the effort. I haven't called anyone stupid. But don't let that fact get in the way of your inferiority complex.

Who exactly are you suggesting to be capable of responsible management? Who exactly has this scientific understanding of reality you can never stop talking about? Who exactly? You have no idea. Thus... A fantasy plan. — Jake

What a stupid question. Who exactly? You mean like Mr Smith of 33 Elm Tree Lane, Nicetown, Anywhere. You want height, weight, date of brith, shoe size and star sign? Who exactly? You have no idea. Thus... a stupid question.

I don't care. I'm not willing to go into the granular detail of the matter. I'd have to examine the EU court's decision, that says in general terms - the UK can revoke Article 50, and compare that to the powers given under the Notification of Withdrawal Act 2017, and that's a lot of work - only to get noped!

Um, — Jake

From Umbridge!

what exactly is a "scientific understanding of reality"? Chanting the phrase is not an explanation. To your knowledge, does anyone on Earth currently have a "scientific understanding of reality" as you define it? If your answer is yes, what are the names of the people who you feel have a "scientific understanding of reality"? — Jake

It's in contrast to an ideological understanding of reality - as is quite simply, the world understood in scientific terms. So, it's not something one has as such - but rather, something of which many people are capable. You do accept, I suppose - that the world is a single planetary environment. It's not made up of nation state shaped pieces. The world didn't come with borders painted on it. Nation states are made up - and yet, it's through the lens of these made up ideas, we make decisions about how to apply technology - not least, nuclear technology.

If your answer is no, then can we agree giving human beings more and more power at an ever faster pace is not such a great plan? — Jake

No. We can't agree. Stop the world I wanna get off - is never the answer. Responsible management is the answer. Responsible to a scientific understanding of reality first, and ideological considerations, like profit - second.

...it's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017). The Withdrawal Act is something else, and follows from the Withdrawal Agreement in a given set of circumstances.
— karl stone

Nope, it's the Withdrawal Act. The Notification Act is spent. — Evola

Nope. It's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017) that prevents May from unilaterally revoking Article 50. It's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017) that followed from the Gina Miller case.

The European Union Withdrawal Act (2018) is something else entirely, and only comes into force after successful ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement. (i.e. the deal....that isn't in fact a deal.)

But they didn't, necessarily, have a scientific understanding of reality.
— karl stone

Ok, so who is it exactly that you are referring to regarding "a scientific understanding of reality"? Imaginary people as yet to be born? — Jake

You're like that fish - who, when asked "How's the water?" answers: "What the hell is water?" There's a difference between an ideological understanding of reality; that is, the world seen through the lens of religion, nation states and money - and a scientific understanding of reality. You don't even seem to realize that your very identity and purposes are shaped by religious, political and economic ideologies.

Well, I'm sorry to break this to you champ, but those ideologies are not true - not in the way science is true anyway. They're conventions, and they do not describe reality as it really is. That difference is the problem. It's why everything is getting in strange ways worse, despite astonishing scientific and social advancement over the past 200 years. It's a mistake in the program - something we need to put right to ensure we can progress toward a long and bright future.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. How's the water?

She could always use Royal Prerogative!
— karl stone

She can't. It was established in the Miller case that prerogative powers do not extend to changing domestic law or affecting domestic rights. — Evola

Yes, I think you might be right. Although strictly speaking:

"Revocation of Article 50 would require repeal of the Withdrawal Act."

...it's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017). The Withdrawal Act is something else, and follows from the Withdrawal Agreement in a given set of circumstances.

Ok, here's an example.

Why did a scientific understanding of reality not prevent Los Alamos scientists from CHOOSING to build the bomb?

Wait, stop, no blame shifting please. Every Los Alamos scientist had the choice to refuse. They could have chosen death rather than to build a doomsday device. But they didn't refuse, they instead willingly participated and had pride that they had been selected for such a high priority project.

The Los Alamos scientists had the scientific understanding of reality or they couldn't have built the bomb. Having the scientific understanding of reality didn't stop them from choosing to build the bomb.

I'm not trying to demonize the scientists here. I'm simply saying that they were human beings like the rest of us, and a scientific understanding of reality did not seem to be a sufficient mechanism for preventing them from doing something insane. — Jake

But they didn't, necessarily, have a scientific understanding of reality. They were specialists in particular scientific fields; operating within an ideological context - in which, the world isn't seen as a single planetary environment, but rather - a jigsaw puzzle made up of nation state shaped pieces. There's nothing that more promotes that ideological worldview than war between nations. I assume the threat of another nation developing the doomsday weapon first was the overwhelming factor. But you're asking me what other people thought. I can't know that.

yes, you keep repeating how it was manufactured. An opinion most Brits don't share with you so really an irrelevancy where it comes to the overall perception of May and the EU. — Benkei

I can't speak for most people. I can only speak to the facts. It's amazing you can tell what most people think. There's a lot of people claiming to speak for a lot of people, and the the only people not getting a say are the people themselves. They were lied to, incited, cajoled, seduced, deceived, manipulated and harried into voting Leave in 2016 - and only did so by the narrowest of margins. There's no genuine democratic consent for brexit.

I'm not saying she will succeed in pushing the perception to one where other people than May will be blamed but it seems the strategy of the British political parties at this time to be concerned with who to blame more then to cooperate and reach a sensible agreement. — Benkei

It seems to me they're trying to walk off the no deal cliff, while pretending it's someone else's fault. The will of the people, the EU, Remoaners - they'll blame anyone but themselves for what they are doing - because they know damn well the consequences will be catastrophic for a great many people.

think there's 0 chance the UK will revoke the article 50 notice as there's no majority support for it in Parliament. There's no democratic legitimacy for the government to revoke it without that support and as such would be political suicide for the already estranged, English political elite if they did do it. The result of the referendum cannot be ignored like that. — Benkei

I don't agree, but we'll see. There's no good way forward from here. Someone is going to end up very much put out, and bear mind that 3/4 of people didn't vote Leave. This bitterness will drag on and on - if Article 50 isn't revoked, the economy crashes and people lose jobs, homes, businesses - because 26% of the population got conned by corrupt billionaire tax dodgers.

Sadly, she does not, and after the Supreme Court's ruling on the Miller case, parliamentary approval may be required to ask for an extension. Revocation of Article 50 would require repeal of the Withdrawal Act. To think that the Miller case seemed like a good idea at the time.

What May needs to do is have that vote, and plead for an extension to A50. In the meantime put in place legislation to repeal the Withdrawal Act, then she can revoke A50. Then she better call a general election. — Evola

She could always use Royal Prerogative!

The way to do that is to accept a scientific understanding of reality in common, as a basis to apply technology.
— karl stone

Ok, could you perhaps expand on "accepting a scientific understanding of reality" in some specific detail, given that this idea seems central to your thesis? If you are willing, please try to avoid typing the sentences you've already shared a number of times and try to explain it from some different angle, the more specific the better. Perhaps you could use some particular technology like AI or genetic engineering as an example? — Jake

Maybe you could expand on what it is you don't get. It really is something you need to 'get' for yourself, because I can't crawl inside your head and point out the contrast between your ideological worldview, and a scientific worldview. I have described the evolution of humankind, and how tribal morality was manifest in an innate moral sensibility, and the tribal kinship structure.

I've explained how hunter gatherer tribes employed God as an objective authority, to allow for an explicit moral code, or law and order, that applied to everyone (think about Moses coming down the mountain with his stone tablets) to thereby overcome the tribal hierarchy problem, and join together to form societies and civilizations.

And I've explained how this created an ideological power structure that had a necessary resistance to the occurrence of science. Science as an understanding of reality has been suppressed these past 400 years - even while science was used to power the industrial revolution. Applying science and technology as dictated by ideological notions brings us to the edge of extinction. We need to accept a scientific understanding of reality - and apply technology accordingly.

I don't know how else to say it. Asking me to "say all that again... only slower, and using different words" is not a legitimate request. If you have a specific question, I'll do my best to answer it.

May has a choice, and if she walks this country off a cliff - it will be on purpose.
— karl stone

Immaterial if you can blame someone else. — Benkei

The old adage, "we are only ever three meals from revolution" is always worth keeping in mind. May can revoke Article 50, and she should. If she doesn't, and people are losing their jobs and businesses, their homes are being repossessed, and so on - blaming it on the EU and the will of the people isn't going to hold up to scrutiny - particularly when "the will of the people" was so obviously manufactured in 2016, and has changed dramatically since.

Cameron and May were brexiteers - who sabotaged Remain with impossible pledges, and a vast deliberate failure on immigration, while providing for a referendum that was all about immigration. They played a central and duplicitous part in manufacturing consent for an unplanned, uncosted, unplan - that two years later, still doesn't work. She alone has the power to stop brexit by revoking Article 50. If she doesn't - it's entirely on her shoulders.

I don't have a plan - how could I?
— karl stone

Right. You don't have a plan. Nobody does. Which is what makes your thesis unrealistic.

Imagine I said that all these problems would be solved if human beings became gods. Ok, I suppose that would be true. But nobody has a clue how we might become gods. So it's a silly proposal. And repeating it in every thread wouldn't fix that. — Jake

But it's not impossible, or even unlikely - that in years to come people will be looking for a means to systematically address the existential threats bearing down upon us. The way to do that is to accept a scientific understanding of reality in common, as a basis to apply technology. It's actually a very reasonable idea, but it would be unreasonable of me to seek to dictate how that might play out. I can't plan other people's thinking and behavior. I can only make the argument that accepting science as truth is a safe and reliable approach.

The problem is, that science as truth has been suppressed for 400 years - and the countervailing arguments laid on pretty thick. Religion, philosophy, political ideology, right through to popular fiction - the mad scientist is defeated by the God loving, flag waving hero. People are afraid of science as truth, but they needn't be. If you look around at the technological miracles scientific thinking surrounds us with - accepting science as truth would allow us to claim that functionality for ourselves, and apply it to the way the world works.

If we accept science as truth, we need not have less, eat lentils and sit in the cold and dark to tackle climate change, or regret our existence as overpopulation. If we accept science is true, and apply technology accordingly, we could make a paradise of this world - and all it requires is changing our minds.

Wow. You don't understand that border traffic is in both directions? — Evola

More like which direction you're coming from. I'm still not sure. Saying something like "Brussels will not negotiate further. UK will be brought to heal or be cast out." plays right into the idea of the EU as a dictatorial foreign government that underlies brexiteer opinion. You're not, by any chance a Leave voter who's changed their mind, are you?

Brussels will not negotiate further. UK will be brought to heal or be cast out. Ireland better comply or it's curtains. See links I provided to mood of EU Parliament above. — Evola

I agree that Brussels is unlikely to make further changes to the backstop. But for me, the implication is that brexit doesn't work - it's a failed policy proposal that should never have been offered to the British public in a referendum in the first place. Kicking Ireland out of the EU, likely or otherwise - presupposes brexit goes ahead. I don't think it can, or should, or will.

There is only one way the UK can avoid paying the £39 billion penalty, revoke Article 50. — Evola

Ultimately, Theresa May has the ability to revoke Article 50 at any time - and that makes her alone responsible. There's all the reason in the world to revoke A50 - from the corrupt referendum, to the situation in Ireland, to the lack of preparedness on so many fronts, to the catastrophic economic consequences of a no-deal brexit. May has a choice, and if she walks this country off a cliff - it will be on purpose.

Taking back control of our borders!
— karl stone

The UK can have porous borders, but the EU won't, and if Ireland doesn't comply it will be kicked out of the EU.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1082829/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Ireland-border-backstop-Leo-Varadkar-Theresa-May — Evola

I don't know what you're saying here - or how this is a response to my post. The UK is planning to wave lorries, and presumably illegal immigrants through customs at the Dover/Calais crossing - as a consequence of a referendum sold on the idea of taking back control of our borders, and reducing immigration. The whole thing is a lie.

The Irish border is another issue entirely - one there's nothing much to say on, because currently Theresa May is going back to Brussels, again... supposedly to negotiate on an issue, that from the EU's point of view, is very firmly decided. It's utterly bizarre. Brexit does not work for anyone but disaster capitalists. It needs to stop.

Just read today, the plan in a no deal scenario is to wave traffic through customs unchecked.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47121225

Taking back control of our borders!

Heidegger is not doing metaphysics — bloodninja

He's merely being metaphysical!

LOL

What is your plan for persuading our culture to make the philosophical shift you deem to be necessary? Without such a plan, your ideas are just a utopian vision not based in reality. — Jake

I don't have a plan - how could I? It depends upon persuading other people of the rightness of my views. My plan is expressing those views. What would you have me do - go door to door? "Have you heard the good news about science?" Really?

How do you propose that you will get everyone to "recognize the significance of scientific method" and "accept the authority of scientific knowledge"? — Jake

Do you?

All you're saying is that if human beings were fully rational we wouldn't have these problems, which is true, agreed. But you've living in a fantasy of your own invention, because human beings are instead just barely rational, as it would seem our bored relationship with nuclear weapons should prove beyond any doubt. — Jake

That's not what I'm saying at all. Do you really imagine I'd propose an idea that requires human beings were like Spock from Star Trek - and that I spend all this time and energy weeping over the fact they're not? That kind of naivety would be literally insane. It doesn't require absolute logic to recognize that science is a profound truth, nor to recognize that the world is faced with dire challenges. Indeed, it's the very moral abhorrence of allowing a terrible fate to befall our planet - the love and fear people have for their children, I believe will necessitate action. My theory is concerned with what action is necessary, moral, possible, productive and stable.

I'm not mischaracterizing your theory Karl, I'm just showing you the parts of it that you don't wish to see. And like I said, I'm in the same boat. I keep typing about this as if doing so would make the slightest bit of difference, when clearly that is just my own flavor of fantasy. — Jake

No, you're right. You understand as best you're able. It was mere flattery on my part to suggest a mischievous motive on your part. It's like when a dog thinks he's people - and you play along until it dumps on the living room carpet. Then it get's its nose rubbed in it!

dude, metaphysics and epistemology both suck. — bloodninja

I disagree. Metaphysics sucks because it's all rhyme and no reason; in contradiction to epistemology which asks "What can we know?' and "How can we know it?" - thus providing any epistemology based philosophy with a theory of truth and reason by which its claims can be measured.

Metaphysics can say anything, and reason anyhow. As Heidegger's obsession with the random concept of "being" demonstrates. One has to ask - is Heidegger's work merely the longest dictionary definition of a word ever? A word coined - not as an exacting definition of a nuomenal phenomenon, but for linguistic convenience.

"It's something Jake and I have discussed at great length, that he is aware of - but which he mis-characterizes in order to attack. Basically, I argue that humankind made a potentially fatal mistake by failing to recognize the significance of scientific method, and so denying the authority of scientific knowledge, and that it's necessary - and possible to correct this mistake, in order to secure a sustainable future."
— karl stone

In other words, a utopian vision with no basis in reality. But then me trying to address these topics on forums is the same thing. — Jake

See! There he does again with the blatant mis-characterization.

It's entirely based in reality. It begins with evolution, anthropology, religion, history, the occurrence - and suppression of science by religion, goes on to discuss the consequences of that mistake - and the potential benefits, and dangers of correcting it.

Sustainability is not utopian. It's been the natural assumption of every generation before ours. It's the very least we should expect - and evidence something has gone very wrong if we can see the final horizon.

As for discussing this topic here, I think it better to discuss such a difficult subject in a relatively quiet corner - from a low platform, and let it filter out. If I'm right, and I am - people will find it.

The thread's clearly supposed to be about Heidegger exegesis and criticism, specifically about the relationship of his account in Being and Time to nature. While there is a relationship to physics (which Josh provided uncommented quotes for and perpetuated the myth that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has anything to do with uncertainty rooted in perspectival variation), the ontology of nature, and how scientific understanding constrains and enables metaphysical speculation, your discussion isn't really on any of these topics. — fdrake

You're quite right. I apologize and shall make no further comment, that's not strictly related to the subject of the thread.

Metaphysics sucks! Epistemology rules! Whhoooo! Yeah!

Karl Stone: I have no idea what you've been on about this last three pages. What is this "very deep theory that's concerned with the nature of reality ... life ... the nature of mind"? — Esunjiya

It's something Jake and I have discussed at great length, that he is aware of - but which he mis-characterizes in order to attack. Basically, I argue that humankind made a potentially fatal mistake by failing to recognize the significance of scientific method, and so denying the authority of scientific knowledge, and that it's necessary - and possible to correct this mistake, in order to secure a sustainable future.

To quote Richard Feynman, if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. I don't - but I do understand the philosophy of science, and I'm not willing to accept that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a relevant factor, or that it applies to macroscopic phenomena. This desperate latching onto quantum mechanics by every crackpot metaphysical hack makes my skin crawl. — karl stone

Mine too, but there's is merely misuse. — tim wood

"There's" means - there is! "Theirs" means belonging to them! But forget that. Let's talk about quantum mechanics and the philosophy of science!

And here. I asked you a question, one that only you could answer - and you took care to avoid answering it. — tim wood

I don't accept this is a question, per se:

When you say you're a philosopher, what do mean by that? What is it that you understand a philosopher to be? I'd add the further constraint that real philosophers get paid for their work in philosophy, but while that is indicative, it is not conclusive. — karl stone

It's a snide remark. What was to be gained from answering as if it were an honest question? Let's see.

By 'I'm a philosopher' I mean to say I constantly engage with philosophical questions - and do so in relation to all the other questions I've engaged with, in order to develop a coherent understanding of reality, I hope can be useful to others. I'm never not doing philosophy. I am a philosopher. It's not a job - it's a vocation.