3 ms·

Britain has enough of "experts" apparently https://next.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c https://next.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-

Britain has enough of "experts" apparently https://next.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c https://next.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d... The whole Brexit hoopla was filled with dishonesty and anti-intellectualism that would make likes of Trump proud no wonder scientists are suffering, sure who needs experts...

sievebrain 10y ago
The claim you're making is itself an example of dishonesty and anti-intellectualism. Let's take a look at what Gove actually said - the full quote, not the abridged version people like to throw around: "I think the people in this country have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong" Gove was clearly talking about a very specific subset of all possible 'experts' here - the ones from various (mostly governmental) acronymed organisations who have a long track record of making incorrect forecasts and yet still claim to be able to predict the future using their 'expertise'. The campaign was full of absurdly precise predictions like "leaving the EU will cost each household exactly £4300 a year". Gove's position is not unreasonable or anti-intellectual. Post-vote, Paul Krugman started laying into economists and the economics profession as a whole, saying essentially that economists didn't deserve to be trusted because they so often made arguments that were just intellectual-sounding nonsense. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/the-macroeconomics-of-brexit-motivated-reasoning/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/the-macroeconomi... http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/more-on-the-short-run-macroeconomics-of-brexit/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/more-on-the-shor...
- anon1385 10y ago
  >Gove was clearly talking about a very specific subset of all possible 'experts' here - the ones from various (mostly governmental) acronymed organisations The question was about the following "experts" (it was Gove who defined them as experts not the interviewer): >The leaders of the US, India, China, Australia, every single one of our allies, the Bank of England, the IFS, the IMF, the CBI, five former NATO secretary generals, the chief executive of the NHS and most of the leaders of the trade unions in Britain
- gonvaled 10y ago
  So people are tired of incompetent experts? Sure! And experts from organisations with acronyms? As oposed to those from organisations without acronyms? This looks like he wants to hear opinions from his preferred kind of experts.
  - sievebrain 10y ago
    The Platonian ideal of an unbiased, expert economist who can see into the future is a fantasy. No such people exist.
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      Sure, so he was chosing his particular brand of experts, of which there seems to be few.
mattmanser 10y ago
I voted remain. You watch the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA&feature=youtu.be&t=62 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA&feature=youtu.be... The actual quote is: "People have had enough of experts from organisations with acronymns saying they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong". By implication, those "experts" aren't actually experts because they get it consistently wrong. But sure, it's easy to mis-quote him and cut the rest of the statement to make the leave voters sound like knuckle draggers because that's the agenda a certain set of the remain voters wanted to push. Leave voters are stoooopppppidddddddd. That tactic didn't work well. Gove was talking about experts who get it consistently wrong. So many of these "experts" have suddenly gone "oh, we wrong, X won't happen now after all", all the threats, punishment budgets and dire consequences have dissipated like the nonsense fear-mongering they actually were. And we also now get a report about the IMF being irrationally pro-Euro, destroying Greece in the process, and we were supposed to listen to them as neutral voices about Brexit consequences? Turns out they had vested interests, just like so many of the other "independent" "experts". What we have now seen, and Brexit has really shone a light on this, is that the political elite across the world seem obsessed with European political integration and will spout utterly unsubstantiated rubbish to justify it. So, he was kinda right. Which is very disappointing. I voted remain.
Silhouette 10y ago
The whole Brexit hoopla was filled with dishonesty and anti-intellectualism Sadly, both official campaigns were the worst kind of politics, with a lot of negative campaigning, full of half-truths and sometimes outright lies, frequently trying to make voters fear consequences that were highly unlikely, and frequently more about personalities than policies. The same was true of many interventions by various foreign leaders, mostly advocating Remain but again often through negativity about Leave rather than a positive message; their rhetoric was also being walked back within moments of the actual result being known. I've had a few interesting discussions with friends and friends-of-friends, before and since the referendum itself. I've heard views, often strong ones, for both decisions articulated based on reasonable principles and rational arguments. I've seen intelligent, well-informed people reach either conclusion. However, many of the issues that ultimately persuaded those people one way or the other were hardly mentioned by the official campaigns, both of which focussed on the short term and on the economy and immigration for the most part. Something I've seen many people, voting either way, agree on is that we don't really know why people chose to vote the way they did, which was always going to put whoever was in government after the vote in a tricky position because they would have a mandate to do something but little other guidance on how to set out the details. For example, in my personal experience I've met plenty of people who value the collaborative arrangements with our European neighbours on issues like trade and freedom of movement and the scientific research we're talking about in this discussion, yet who strongly dislike the EU as an institution because of some other aspects of membership. So far, I'd say roughly half of those people voted each way in the actual referendum, based on which outcome they thought was most likely to achieve the middle of the road path they really wanted. However, I have no reliable way to determine whether this sentiment is just a small clique around my own social network, or whether actually most people who voted had similar views and the hardline pro-EU Remain and anti-immigrant Leave voters who are getting most of the press are small but vocal minorities.
- SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
  > Sadly, both official campaigns were the worst kind of politics "they're both as bad as each other" in political discussion is a facile position, and usually an unhelpful one.
crdoconnor 10y ago
When economists who entirely failed to see the 2008 financial crisis coming try to convince you that Brexit will be a calamity, skepticism is a healthy response. When 'respectable' institutional economists make predictions like this: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/11-2/troika%20historical%20greece_0.png http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/im... It's pretty clear that they don't even want to be right.

sievebrain 10y ago

The claim you're making is itself an example of dishonesty and anti-intellectualism. Let's take a look at what Gove actually said - the full quote, not the abridged version people like to throw around: "I think the people in this country have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong" Gove was clearly talking about a very specific subset of all possible 'experts' here - the ones from various (mostly governmental) acronymed organisations who have a long track record of making incorrect forecasts and yet still claim to be able to predict the future using their 'expertise'. The campaign was full of absurdly precise predictions like "leaving the EU will cost each household exactly £4300 a year". Gove's position is not unreasonable or anti-intellectual. Post-vote, Paul Krugman started laying into economists and the economics profession as a whole, saying essentially that economists didn't deserve to be trusted because they so often made arguments that were just intellectual-sounding nonsense. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/the-macroeconomics-of-brexit-motivated-reasoning/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/the-macroeconomi... http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/more-on-the-short-run-macroeconomics-of-brexit/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/more-on-the-shor...

anon1385 10y ago
>Gove was clearly talking about a very specific subset of all possible 'experts' here - the ones from various (mostly governmental) acronymed organisations The question was about the following "experts" (it was Gove who defined them as experts not the interviewer): >The leaders of the US, India, China, Australia, every single one of our allies, the Bank of England, the IFS, the IMF, the CBI, five former NATO secretary generals, the chief executive of the NHS and most of the leaders of the trade unions in Britain
gonvaled 10y ago
So people are tired of incompetent experts? Sure! And experts from organisations with acronyms? As oposed to those from organisations without acronyms? This looks like he wants to hear opinions from his preferred kind of experts.
- sievebrain 10y ago
  The Platonian ideal of an unbiased, expert economist who can see into the future is a fantasy. No such people exist.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    Sure, so he was chosing his particular brand of experts, of which there seems to be few.

mattmanser 10y ago

I voted remain. You watch the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA&feature=youtu.be&t=62 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA&feature=youtu.be... The actual quote is: "People have had enough of experts from organisations with acronymns saying they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong". By implication, those "experts" aren't actually experts because they get it consistently wrong. But sure, it's easy to mis-quote him and cut the rest of the statement to make the leave voters sound like knuckle draggers because that's the agenda a certain set of the remain voters wanted to push. Leave voters are stoooopppppidddddddd. That tactic didn't work well. Gove was talking about experts who get it consistently wrong. So many of these "experts" have suddenly gone "oh, we wrong, X won't happen now after all", all the threats, punishment budgets and dire consequences have dissipated like the nonsense fear-mongering they actually were. And we also now get a report about the IMF being irrationally pro-Euro, destroying Greece in the process, and we were supposed to listen to them as neutral voices about Brexit consequences? Turns out they had vested interests, just like so many of the other "independent" "experts". What we have now seen, and Brexit has really shone a light on this, is that the political elite across the world seem obsessed with European political integration and will spout utterly unsubstantiated rubbish to justify it. So, he was kinda right. Which is very disappointing. I voted remain.

Silhouette 10y ago

The whole Brexit hoopla was filled with dishonesty and anti-intellectualism Sadly, both official campaigns were the worst kind of politics, with a lot of negative campaigning, full of half-truths and sometimes outright lies, frequently trying to make voters fear consequences that were highly unlikely, and frequently more about personalities than policies. The same was true of many interventions by various foreign leaders, mostly advocating Remain but again often through negativity about Leave rather than a positive message; their rhetoric was also being walked back within moments of the actual result being known. I've had a few interesting discussions with friends and friends-of-friends, before and since the referendum itself. I've heard views, often strong ones, for both decisions articulated based on reasonable principles and rational arguments. I've seen intelligent, well-informed people reach either conclusion. However, many of the issues that ultimately persuaded those people one way or the other were hardly mentioned by the official campaigns, both of which focussed on the short term and on the economy and immigration for the most part. Something I've seen many people, voting either way, agree on is that we don't really know why people chose to vote the way they did, which was always going to put whoever was in government after the vote in a tricky position because they would have a mandate to do something but little other guidance on how to set out the details. For example, in my personal experience I've met plenty of people who value the collaborative arrangements with our European neighbours on issues like trade and freedom of movement and the scientific research we're talking about in this discussion, yet who strongly dislike the EU as an institution because of some other aspects of membership. So far, I'd say roughly half of those people voted each way in the actual referendum, based on which outcome they thought was most likely to achieve the middle of the road path they really wanted. However, I have no reliable way to determine whether this sentiment is just a small clique around my own social network, or whether actually most people who voted had similar views and the hardline pro-EU Remain and anti-immigrant Leave voters who are getting most of the press are small but vocal minorities.

SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
> Sadly, both official campaigns were the worst kind of politics "they're both as bad as each other" in political discussion is a facile position, and usually an unhelpful one.

crdoconnor 10y ago

When economists who entirely failed to see the 2008 financial crisis coming try to convince you that Brexit will be a calamity, skepticism is a healthy response. When 'respectable' institutional economists make predictions like this: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/11-2/troika%20historical%20greece_0.png http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/im... It's pretty clear that they don't even want to be right.