Alternatives To Certainty: A Bird In The Hand.

 

 ...and another one (Bullfinches are invariably found in pairs) in the bush!

Yesterday, a male Bullfinch above flew into a window, and stunned itself. Fortunately, it appeared only stunned and needed about 40 minutes to recover before flying away to a nearby apple tree with normal, strong flight returned and alertness in it's behaviour, restored.

Before then, I had picked it up and gone outside and held it in my hand in the sunshine until it had fully "woken up" while it seemed to doze off, at the same time as hoping it was merely stunned and not otherwise seriously injured. Well, it was wonderful to see such a beautiful creature so close and more so that it seemed to make a full recovery and fly away again. The above youtube clip is remarkably similar to my own experience, above, though I did not stroke the bird, merely providing a perch for it, in my hand and for some time a seat as it sat down for a good while too while it closed it's eyes and tried to recover from the stun or shock of it's impact. I remained calm though inwardly feeling consternation for such a bird, one of my favourites, in fact.

So I decided with this thought on my mind of such a beautiful creature to connect the experience with the current topic I noticed on the EU; afterall there's such little inspiration to be had from the channels of communication that so poorly serve the people in how our politics is conducted:-

1. Caroline Lucas was talking about people overestimating how democratic Westminster is.

2. Richard Dawkins was cited as suggesting his own ignorance is (he's actually aware of) is too high for people to really vote on this issue in a direct democratic vote ie Referendum.

3. Following on the daily status quo that "Remain" is the safe option" compared to "Leave" which is the essence of David Cameron's argument.

What I will say about the above: There's a lot of different things going on in what these people say. To briefly explain the arguments:-

1. Caroline Lucas is right: Westminster itself is not very democratic, but the argument she's really making is that for her particular arguments they deserve special status that is even less democratic so that they can't be modified as easily by voters, namely why she supports as a Green the EU.

2. Dawkins is it seems aware enough to assess his own state of ignorance and notice the low quality arguments in the news-media. But he fails to understand that ironically the process of Direct Democracy on the Subject as opposed to the People who espouse (supposedly for a range of subjects) is a positive experience for electorates to feedback on "democracy in action" directly. He also fails to appreciate that this activity promotes a higher trend of increase of knowledge on the subject and more pressure on the low quality arguments polluted by inverting the processes of conclusions and results. Namely polling presumes people already hold conclusions without recourse to results, so it's a question of massaging the message to assume the appearance that appeals to those people!!

3. And hence Cameron's "Devil's Trick" is to blind people to the actual EU Question = "EU Membership" not Economics.

• Description: Above I have described three people's arguments.
• Explanation: I've explained roughly the arguments used.
• Arguments: They each make some statements to form an argument to persuade others of some conclusion they desire or deem good.

This leads us to the question: How do we truly know the value of the above however? Well for that we'd need to deduct as much of the facts as possible. This is a complex process. So much so that:-

1. The complexity has limits to simplification.
2. The logistics of deducting and researching for oneself is necessarily highly involved and demanding and of course may be impractical for communication at a massive scale.
3. Where we can simplify we can make progress. Where we can't we have to rely on alternatives instead of "validation" we rely on "probability".

Hence the old cautionary phrase:-

In fact, Vote Leave have done everything possible it seems to me to ensure people think that Brexit is "a risk, because chances are that you (pl.) could lose everything."

Once people believe the frame of the question is this, then what David Cameron says sounds like the right answer...

... but it's the right answer to the wrong question! As per Roland Smith: Read The Question!

So people can save themselves time if they think and say these things with under a month until the voting day:-

• "I don't know enough how to vote."
• "They're all as bad as each other anyway."
• "It won't change anything anyway if I vote."

Let's look at Caroline Lucas' argument on our own Westminster Politicians:-

• "No Loss of Sovereignty" [Not Happening Argument]
• "There May Be Some Loss of Sovereignty but it's very little." [Happening but insignificant (and not applicable to the UK) Argument]
• "There is Some Loss of Sovereignty but it's worth it." [Happening and Significant and Applicable to the UK) but Positive]
• "Sovereignty is overrated and besides there's nothing we can do about it." [It's Happened already whether or not it's positive or negative and is now "normal" or "the way the world works" / status quo - there is no alternative.

On Richard Dawkins argument:-

• We've missed a Referendum on the previous major treaties, the problem is not a Referendum, it's not enough Referendums on subjects that are smaller and more apprehensible and applicable as and when they are passed for motion for democratic legitimacy by the people.
• We've been in the EEC/EU for over 40 yrs, a long enough time for people to educate more people, so the problem is not the impossibility of knowing, it's the methods or failure of democracy to do just that! See previous.
• His very argument that the Referendum should be an exlusive argument is indeed the very reason why he and so many others feel so ignorance: Because it is an exclusive argument under the current systemic failings of our politics in the UK, that led the UK into the EEC in the first place!

On David Cameron's argument:-

• People voting in the EU Referendum: The big con trick being asked of you is to apparently vote for either one set of Westminster Pro-EU politicians or an alternative set of Westminster Anti-EU politicians and both of their fallacious arguments come a distant second as if this is a General Election.
• This "Devil's Trick" by Cameron and Vote Leave is setting up the "One Bird In The Hand" Inductive Thinking in people to vote Remain.
• One bird in the hand may seem to be "probably" better than speculating on two in the bush. But in fact the Sovereignty of the People of the UK does not belong to either the EU or Westminster!
• This is indeed the question that is being asked in the EU Referendum as Roland Smith correctly points out.
• Knowing that is the question, the answer is simple. What is the best reason to vote to Leave the EU?

 

Success for me was seeing the Bullfinch fly away back into the bush and not in anyone's hand, thankfully!