The last weblog text on open access publishing caused me to write this letter to VSNU and other bodies in Holland. VSNU is the platform at which Dutch universities collaborate.

Letter to VSNU and others on membership dues and open access publishing.

Addendum October 17 2016: There is a spreadsheet example now with rough data for mathematics education in Holland.

  • It would cost school employers an additional EUR 50 per mathematics teacher to compensate teachers for memberschip of NVvW (the Dutch association of mathematics teachers) and turn Euclides (its journal) into an open access journal.
  • Employers have already agreed to compensation. It is just that (mainly 2nd degree) teachers do not join up.
  • For publishers, schools already have contracts for access, such that a teacher only has to activate the account. Similarly, schools might see it as a contract with NVvW, and teachers only have to activate their membership. (NVvW thinks of itself as an association only and not as a publisher too.)
  • Employers cannot say what association their teachers should join. The closed shop should not be with a particular association but with a default association. The individual teacher decides whether to join an association and which one. The decision to join is only made easier via “complementary subscription” and the “activation of membership”.

Secondly, I had to think about what Timothy Gowers wrote when announcing “Discrete Analysis” while using the Scholastica platform.

(a) He uses that accepts submissions from all over the world. But this would be difficult to create for each discipline. Best is that the institute where you graduate also supports your follow-up.

(b) In that line of argument: It appears that arXiv rejects some papers because they are second-guessing universities whether you are a “true” scientist or not. Papers of mine have been rejected as if I were a crackpot. See my protest about how they can handle this. But I have a degree of econometrics from Groningen (1982) and teacher of mathematics from Leiden (2008). I am quite dismayed that arXiv starts judging on quality while they don’t have the background to judge. See also Richard Gill’s experience on a similar strange rejection, the paragraph “Quantum crackpots”.

(c) Gowers wants “quality” for his journal on “Discrete Analysis”, as if this would be a criterion for open access publishing. This is really no argument but misunderstood vanity. An editor for “peer review” should check on clarity and scientific nature, and that is it. The discussion on quality might be done at a second stage, and is a different kind of discussion. Such decisions actually are new articles, in which an editor-author may argue why some paper or analysis has quality. Gowers identifies these “judgements on quality” as “editorial comments”. Those however should also be submitted to peer review, and they generate citations (namely when such an author refers to proper sources). Gowers now generates the strange phenomenon that some people might make the inference “It was rejected by Discrete Analysis and thus it doesn’t have enough quality”, while that very topic of quality should be subject to peer review at least.

Addendum 2016-10-13: Thus, there might be three types of journals while Gowers has only one. Note the word type. With three types, there can still many different titles, also on Discrete Analysis.

(c1) A journal type “Proofreadings for Discrete Analysis”, consisting of links to submissions (abstracts and full texts) and links to the referee reports.

(c2) A journal type “Recommendations for Discrete Analysis”, with again a list of links, likely introduced by the abstracts. The meaning of this journal is that editors perform as 2nd stage proofreaders, who judge on the articles and referee reports, and provide recommendation by inclusion in the list. It would be best to specify which editor does the recommendation, since we cannot presume that all have read it. Potentially, though, editors hide in the herd to secure anonimity. Editor reports are entered as 2nd stage referee reports in the repository, both for recommended and rejected articles.

(c3) A journal type “Discussion of the recommendations for Discrete Analysis”, in which editors of (c2) given an overview clarification of their recommendations and rejections. Basically these texts have first been published in (c1), and the selection for (c3) is done by another group of editors than for (c2). Editor reports of (c3) are again included in the repository, with links to the underlying original papers.

(d) We should not confuse open-access with open-minded. I wonder whether Gowers is aware that mathematicians have a mortal fear for crackpots. Will his journal be open-minded or will it be another exercise by mathematicians to abuse others as crackpots ? An example of abuse is given in the former weblog text w.r.t. a paper on a new algebraic approach to the derivative.

Let each institute of higher education (HE) – university or college – create a working paper archive (WPA) for its alumni.

The alumni can be at the level of bachelor, master or PhD, see the Bologna Process at ECAHE for a description of the quality levels.

For example, one of the qualifications for a master’s degree is:

“have demonstrated knowledge and understanding that (…) provides a basis or opportunity for originality in developing and/or applying ideas, often within a research context;”

If a university deems someone worthy of a master’s degree then it would be logical to assume that the new master might develop some new ideas, and then it would be useful when those could be archived. Let the institute that granted the degree create such an archive for its alumni.

The alumni would not be obliged to use this archive, but having such an opportunity would be a great service to the world. Creating such an archive would serve the purposes of universities and colleges and their libraries on the recording and distribution of knowledge.

It would be better when the archive would not only contain drafts for articles submitted to peer reviewed journals, but also versions, research notes and comments, or links to those.

These higher education HEWPAs would form the basis of what would be called the “publishing process”.

  • Submission to the database would make the results public. Everyone should be able to read the submission. Potentially there might be an option to time-stamp an idea and keep it secret for a while, but such ideas should become public after the author’s death plus some years. Potentially there might be a protocol for patenting as well.
  • The copyright remains with the author. Submitted material can be read by others but can only be reused with permission for which types of contracts are available.
  • There would be monitoring of citations, comments, versions, and so on.
  • Groups of editors might form journals to serve particular interest groups. They might choose to list only the abstracts with links to the WPA, or assist the author in a new version or new layout. These would be scientific journals and hence open access. There would be no additional costs for publishing or distribution, since the costs of the WPA are paid for by institute of HE. If editing is seen as part of an academic job, then these editors are paid for the institutes as well. The commenting on work by others forms part of scientific research indeed. Trying to make your journal “the best” might be part of unavoidable vanity.
  • The archive function is intermediate between library and press. Many elements in the datebase can be printing on demand. For some publications there can be volume printing, as now happens at university presses. One would suppose that many readers would appreciate quality control by editors for expensive outlays in print.
  • Alumni can also join scientific societies and associations. When these unions are professionally relevant, then the employers would pay for the membership dues. When these dues would be used to support a journal – like the Econometric Society has Econometrica – then this means that the employers would ultimately pay for the editing (or that academia pay for their own editing).

This is how it always should have been. There is no need for “commercial scientific publishing”. The current situation with commercial scientific publishing, pay walls and even scientific associations that put their journals behind pay walls to encourage membership to cover costs, are a deviation from sound management of science.

It is true that a commercial publisher can put out advertisements and use fancy labels and claims like “this is the best journal” while a scientist is supposed to remain modest. Thus we can understand from historical reasons that we got where we are now, and that scientists washed their hands and allowed publishers to take control, but those are not good reasons.

Example 1. Dispersion over various archives and lack of some

Currently, for example, I use (1) my website, (2) this weblog, (3) EconWPA in the past and now the Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA) for my economics papers, (3) I have some papers at on statistics and mathematics history and overview, (4) for time stamps I also used, (5) recently I discovered an archive for Dutch educational materials that also allows English (, (6) and there are the “official publications” with their archives.

This means that economic texts in Dutch are only archived on my own website, and not indexed etcetera. Will foreigners be able to find the English educational material ? This also means that most of my work on education and didactics of mathematics are achived only on my website, and not indexed as such.

For mathematics education there is this curious observation:

“Robert’s last recommendation is to have a preprint server for math education research. As he notes, this is a road we’ve tried to go down before and we didn’t get very far. I don’t think the problem has nearly as much to do with policy or categories of the arXiv as it does with the lack of a “preprint culture” in mathematics education. What I learned in those previous preprint discussions, and in my observations as a developing scholar, is that math educators regularly and happily share work in progress — with a select group of people. In math ed, there doesn’t seem to be widespread faith in anything like Linus’ Law,   the open source software dictum that says, “With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” I think the math wars led to a lot of distrust, and some of it is very rational. It’s safer to only share preliminary work with a few scholars who share similar methods and theoretical frameworks, and then refine the work after peer review before publication in a journal whose readership is likely to understand the work. Maybe it shouldn’t be this way, but to move forward we’re going to have to confront some of these beliefs.” (Raymond Johnson, August 2014)

Example 2. Horrible effects of paywalls

I am already member of the Dutch association of teachers of mathematics NVvW, but for access to the journals of the English ATM or US NCTM I would have additional member fee charges or reading fees, while the Dutch council on education research NRO doesn’t provide subsidies for the kind of research (PROO) that I am doing (letter). Fortunately, my work is so creative that I don’t have to rely on extensive search in the literature, but alternatively put, since I cannot do such extensive search, I focus on what I can do, which is being creative. The snag is that my creative work again hits the pay wall, when “open access” journals again require submission fees and/or transfer of copyrights. My impression is that my membership of the Dutch Royal Library should be sufficient to gain access to information all over the world. Why not ?

Better per institute than discipline

Originally, Bob Parks had an initiative EconWPA at WUStL, modeled after This worked fine, but WUStL stopped it for administrative reasons. One can imagine that it requires an investment to archive papers in a field for the whole world. I am very grateful to Bob for his efforts in the past, and grateful to MPRA to take it over.

This indeed causes the question whether it is useful to archive per discipline or per graduating institute. My impression is that it is better to have the archives at the institutes. They have granted the diploma, and the story starts from there. Over the years an author might shift into a new field but on occasion it would be useful to time-stamp the qualification for that new field.

There are “academic social media” initiatives like ResearchGate, and Mendeley, of which Gaudeamus states: “Too bad they aren’t specialized in socializing the process of publishing in scholarly journals, both to editors and authors.”

Example 3. Article on algebraic approach to the derivative

Having an alumni WPA would mean that I could submit this article to a WPA at Leiden University, where I graduated in mathematics teaching. The article explains the algebraic approach to the derivative as originated for education, and provides a bridge for research mathematicians who might be interested to see whether they can develop it further mathematically.

Currently, the article is only on my website and not at any archive where it can be indexed etcetera.

The article is in English and thus not relevant for the journal Euclides of the Dutch teachers of mathematics.

I submitted the article to “Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde” (NAW), which is the journal of the Dutch society of mathematics, who are mostly research mathematicians (working at the academia).

The referee wrote an abusive report. While I referred to the domain of the reals, which are a Field, he or she gave a “counterexample” with a Ring. There are some more abuses. See my letter of protest.

The editors of NAW rejected the paper while referring to this referee report. I asked the editors whether they had actually read the submitted paper. I received no reply to this. When they had read the paper, then they could have seen themselves that the report was abusive, and that the referee was dysfunctional, especially when I had pointed out the abuse. This is an abysmal manner of editing.

Thus, the paper still is only at my website. If it were at a Working Paper Archive at Leiden University, then editors could be hunting for material, and discover the paper via indexes and abstract and quality of the author. I would not have to look for journals and submit it, and be exposed to such abuse, but quality editors would locate it. The world would be quite different.

A bit more on this example 3

I wrote my protest the same day when the report arrived. My response is to the point. It expresses sheer intellectual outrage. It doesn’t express the emotions that one feels when one’s work is abused, but it expresses the rational outrage that can be substantiated with arguments. The arguments in my response of October 3 suffice.

It is useful to explain a bit more about it. The discovery of the algebraic approach to the derivative dates from 2007 when I retyped “A logic of exceptions” and programmed this in Mathematica, and included a section on the “paradoxes by division by zero”. It is quite a horror show how the mathematics community in Holland has responded to this for almost 10 years now. I have a lot of praise for Richard Gill and Christiaan Boudri but am quite weary w.r.t. others.

With this present paper and referee report: had I waited with my response a few days longer, then I might have added the following. It would have made for a longer reply so it is better that I dispatched my response immediately. Yet, let us look at the additional arguments why the referee report is below standard. The referee refers to “sin x“.

2016-10-03-naw-sinI already wrote my response that the referee could have asked me before rejecting the article. I could have pointed to “Conquest of the Plane” (COTP) (2011) where this is explained, or the review of COTP by Richard Gill in NAW 2012. Those are both in the list of references, and thus the referee was too lazy to look for this, or ask this. Apparently he or she found sufficient satisfaction in having insulted me for not thinking about trigonometry as the most obvious answer for his or her state of ignorance.

However, I would deem that the admission that the algebraic approach would work for polynomials would already be a major reason for publication. The common perception is that limits are required, but if they are not required for polynomials then this is a major step ahead. The referee could have pointed out that the stated objective of the paper is to provide a bridge from education to research mathematics, and then have concluded that the further development might be something for research mathematicians. However, the referee doesn’t see how important this admission is.

However, the referee might also have realised that Sin has a Taylor expansion as a polynomial. Obviously, this expansion uses the limit of n → 0, but not the limit  Δ→ 0 as required for the derivative. My analysis on the algebraic approach to the derivative doesn’t reject limits per se, but only argues the limit Δ→ 0 is superfluous. The required information for the derivative is already in the formula for f[x], and it suffices to use algebraic methods. Thus, if the referee had had a first year course in analysis, then he or she should not have made that remark as quoted above.

Obviously, the Taylor expansion uses the derivatives themselves, and thus there is the question how this feat of Baron von Münchhausen is achieved. Again, the referee could have pointed out that the stated objective of the paper is to provide a bridge from education to research mathematics, and then have concluded that the further development might be something for research mathematicians.

However, I refer to COTP for the deduction. Richard Gill’s review suggests that there is hidden use of limits again in squeezing of values, but, there is actually an application of logic only.

Note also that the referee writes “sin x“. However, the sine is defined as the y-value on the unit circle of arc φ on that unit circle, and Cos[φ] is defined as its x-value. Thus “sin x” is gibberish as if x = φ. See my earlier suggestion for a didactic presentation of trigonometry.

A hypothesis for social psychology: an autistic fear for crackpots

The problem is rather that the world suffers from mathematicians and their fear for crackpots.

Let me quote form here, page 2:

There are ample indications that this hostile attitude is not uncommon in the world of mathematics. A mathematician wrote to me on March 7 2012:

“Once  you have irritated old-style mathematicians (…) they turn, of course, into crackpot interception mode. Start nit-picking, misunderstanding, finding real small errors, maybe some big ones, but  certainly consistently misunderstanding what you are trying to say. We all get letters and papers from crackpots who are squaring the circle, proving that Bell’s theorem is wrong, or solving the P=NP problem. (…) It’s quite a sport to show in public to your mathematical friends that these crackpots are a public nuisance. (…) You drew attention to yourself, you got attention, and now several Delft mathematicians are thoroughly enjoying a little group-crackpot-ridiculization. Bu t I could say (and in fact do) that one could say that you asked for this! Never mind. Remember Gandhi: first they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win.”

I object that I “asked for it”. The quote above concerned “Conquest of the Plane” (COTP) (2011) but the issue is the same for the current paper on the algebraic approach.

The paper that I submitted to NAW is an excellent review of both the algebraic approach and the current state of research on this. It fits the stated objectives of NAW to publish the article. The algebraic approach to the derivative a world class discovery, and it deserves to be treated with respect and be published. I never claimed that everyone should agree with everything. The ideas of publication is dissemination and does not imply that the editors agree with the analysis. They would have a useful role in checking on clarity and relevance for the readership. Competition with other articles is less relevant for digital publishing (though NAW is also on paper).

I am an empirical scientist and no psychologist. I have a bit more leeway than a psychologist to hypothesize about what is happening here.

Earlier I already applied a lay reader’s understanding of social psychology to the world of economics (here or local file). Let me now indicate this for mathematics.

My impression is that mathematicians are further up in the autistic spectrum and have difficulty in dealing with conflicting information. They know that everyone in their peer group hunts for crackpots. In the case of conflicting information they consider it their best protection to accuse others of being a crackpot, rather than confront their peers and be accused of being a crackpot too. They have a mortal fear of being associated with crackpots, and then can no longer think straight or treat someone with respect.

Addendum 2016-10-11: I now located an actual “autistic spectrum”, namely the AQ questionnaire by Simon Baron-Cohen, see also wikipedia (a portal and no source), and Telegraph 2015. Presumably as a scientist I would be scoring higher on this too, but my point would be that mathematicians are trained to look at formulas at the neglect of empirics, language and humans.

In this case mathematicians have been trained to think that limits are required for the derivative (excepting perhaps non-standard analysis). An article claiming otherwise thus provides conflicting information. For me, the referee is anonymous, but he or she is not anonymous for the editors. When they would say “You really liked that article from that crackpot ?” then the referee might feel exposed. For the referee psychological survival dictates the “crackpot-intercepting mode”, with misrepresentation, slander and neglect.

For me as a non-psychologist this is a fair description of the mathematics community as I have experienced it throughout my whole life.

There is a difference between “(research) mathematics” and “mathematics education”. Research mathematicians, like very likely the editors of NAW and their referee, focus on abstraction, and will have less experience with the empirics of education. Teachers of mathematics have to deal with real-life students, but when those teachers originally have been trained as mathematicians, then those teachers suffer cognitive dissonance, and they resort to traditional ways, that however have not been designed for didactics. The educational programme in mathematics gives ample proof that it is not didactic. This situation can only be caused by teachers who do not observe what is happening with students.

Check the evidence.

As in 2008 I advise each country to have a parliamentarian enquiry into mathematics education. For Holland, a petition is here.

Playing the ball and not the man

Obviously, this involves social psychology, and it is not fair to use the argument “ad hominem”, in which one plays the man and not the ball, like in: “He is a mathematician and thus an autist and thus cannot be trusted.” My argument is quite different. My argument observes the facts of an abusive referee report and a abysmal way of editing, relates this to earlier observations, and arrives at the inference that there must be a common factor. The suggestion that the common factor would be a low quality of my work can be rejected, check some other reviews, and, appreciate the point that this concerns mathematics education so that you can check a lot of formulas and arguments yourself. Society has a serious problem in dealing with the human quality of dealing with abstraction.

Effect of name-calling in the community of mathematics education

The hypothesis that mathematicians are higher up in the autistic spectrum, and far too easily resort to the “crackpot-interception mode” (as it euphemistically is called, as it actually involves misrepresentation and slander), fits the observation that name-calling has such a devastating effect within the community of mathematics education.

Some people have the attitude that this is just “name-calling”, and that grown-ups should be able to neglect it. I have indeed been accused of being overly sensitive to such “name-calling”. However, in the community of mathematics education, such name-calling is a “call to arms” and invitation to all to get into the “crackpot-interception mode”. I find it only sensible to protest against it, because we are dealing with a community that stops reading well once the first rock has been thrown.

The algebraic approach to the derivative was discovered and published in 2007 and the first “review” was in 2010, when Ger Limpens reviewed the book “Elegance with Substance” (EWS) (2009, 2015) in Euclides, the journal of the Dutch association of teachers of mathematics. Euclides is not a scientific journal, but one would hope for fair representation. However, Limpens finds it necessary to wonder whether I would be a wierdo. The Dutch word is “zonderling” and the English translation is “wierdo”, since the English word “eccentric” still has a somewhat favourable sound. Eccentrics may be respected in England but in Holland they are abhorred. The idea that Holland would be a tolerant country is a fairy tale. Limpens found it necessary to inform the readers that the cover of the book reminded him of Don Quixote. The editors of Euclides refused to publish my answer. I am rather convinced that Limpens’s misrepresentation, name-calling and slander about EWS made it easier for others and perhaps inspiration for some to throw other rocks. In the present case, I cannot write to the editors of NAW that Limpens gave a positive review, and in fact, as a scientist I must provide all information and report that Limpens took from the book that I would think that Newton and Leibniz would be dumb people. This, alas, is what the editors of Euclides saw fit to print, and of which I must assume that most of my colleague teachers of mathematics have read.

Recently, there was another case of name-calling and reference to Don Quixote, now with respect to the issue when pi or tau “should” be the standard. See my former weblog text on this.

Blind or double blind refereeing need not be wise

Anonymous refereeing as NAW does is an invitation to start misrepresenting. Editors should however also keep in mind that there should be decent treatment of a submitted paper. The latter is important for the citations and career perspectives of the author. Simply referring to other publication possibilities is awkward when a journal like NAW has a monopoly position in Holland. It are my collagues who might wonder: why wasn’t it published in NAW, if it would be so important ?

If I were paranoid then I would argue that the editors of NAW already decided that I would be a crackpot, and that they themselves quickly wrote such an anonymous excuse to block the paper, or asked some of their crackpot-intercepting buddies to write such an excuse. But I am not paranoid and only wonder why such a referee should remain anonymous.

Above I explained that reviewing the work by others is part of your academic job. Thus let it be known who is performing so badly. This is part of the Elo-rating like in chess, where scores are adapted from game results.

The editors of NAW might refer to the case of Limpens. His name is known and I can protest about his maltreatment. The editors of NAW might argue that they want to protect their referees from such protests, as if these referees would only honestly report about their findings when they would have such protection. I doubt whether this is all fair and square. When referees don’t misrepresent, don’t name-call and slander, and don’t neglect or burke, then there should be no problem with arguments pro and con. Then there will be a scientific discussion, as we should all hope for.

(For Dutch readers I can refer to “forum theory” by De Groot, that should be translated into English a.s.a.p.)

Earlier texts on the publishing process

I already wrote on some aspects before.

  • This text in 2014 suggested to replace arXiv with vixra and PressForward.
  • This is its sequel.
  • See here on Timothy Gowers and his boycott of Elsevier 2012. Interestingly, Gowers has now started a journal using the Scholastica platform. Gowers uses arXiv as the farming base, but obviously arXiv can be needlessly selective (in a fear of crackpots), and such a base is lacking for many disciplines, and thus it makes sense to propose that each institute of HE creates its WPA.

Boycott Elsevier, designed by Michael Eisen 2012

Trig Rerigged 2.0 (draft) proposes a new didactic approach to trigonometry. The proposal has the form of a booklet since it reprints some pages from Elegance with Substance (2009, 2015) and A child wants nice and no mean numbers (2015). The format might change in the future, like the earlier discussion of Trig Rerigged 1.0 of 2008 (now legacy) was absorbed in Conquest of the Plane (2011).

The reader might start with page 15 with the main idea, and page 16 with the main graphs. When these make sense, then restart at the beginning. Trig Rerigged 2.0 is targeted at researchers in mathematics education, teachers of mathematics and trainers of teachers. Well, science journalists might step in too. When you are none of these, then you are advised to be satisfied with the following.

Angular circle with circumference 1. Hook disk with area 1

A circle is defined as the collection of points at a given distance from a center. This distance is called radius. The circle is a concept of circumference. There is proportionality with the radius. With radius r we have circumference r Θ.

A disk is defined as the collection of points at a given distance or less from a center. The disk is a concept of area. Area depends upon the square of the radius. The general disk area is π r 2. Areas of concentric disks however are proportional again.

The unit circle has radius 1 and circumference Θ (“archi”) and disk area π (“pi”). Also Θ = 2π.

The angular circle has circumference 1. Angles can be measured as arcs on the angular circle, as percentages of 1.  The angular circle has radius ΘH.  It is common to use the algebraic symbols instead of their numerical values Θ ≈ 6.28… and H = -1 (“eta”).

The hook disk has area 1. Angles can be measured as sectors on the hook disk, as a percentage of 1.  The hook circle has radius √πH.

Main conclusions
  • It is immaterial whether angles are measured as arcs on the angular circle or as sectors on the hook disk. In both cases we have perunages or percentages of 1. The unit of measurement is actually the plane itself. Another formulation is the number of turns around a circle.
  • Both Θ and π are useful symbols to denote these relationships. They support a rich didactic environment, that allows students to grasp the notions that are closer to their understanding, and develop from there.
Graph of angular circle and hook disk

The following graph from page 16 gives the notions in a nutshell.

The angle α is the arc AB along the angular circle, or the sector OCD on the hook disk. When the sector is extended from the hook disk onto the unit circle, then this sector might be called a “Pi hook”, for its value is α π.

The arc EF is the angle in radians, with the value α Θ.

The point {X, Y} = {x, y} rH has the property that X2 + Y2 = 1. It is useful to use the separate symbols X and Y for this point, since it determines the length of arc from {1, 0}. The point on the unit radius (ur) circle can also be described as a function of the angle α, as {X, Y} = {Xur[α], Yur[α]} = {Cos[α Θ], Sin[α Θ]}.

graphPotential implementation

Since these are suggestions for improved didactics, there must be empirical testing to determine whether these are improvements indeed. It are the students who must show that it works.

Earlier I discussed the US Common Core. This new development on the didactics of trigonometry can be included. See Trig Rerigged 2.0 for more on the relationship to the US Common Core.

I am not qualified for primary education, but the above would seem to be helpful. For example, young pupils could colour sectors of the hook disk, and determine that hooks are additive. At a next stage, they may see the frailer circumference, and see that e.g. 25% of hook matches with 25% of angle. The pupils would be able to determine the radii of the hook disk and the angular circle, so that they grasp proportionality, and that area goes by the square of the radius, and the relationships to Θ and π.

There is an intermediate stage at which {X, Y} = {Xur[α], Yur[α]} = {Cos[α Θ], Sin[α Θ]} will be discussed, and their inverses. Parts might already be done in elementary school, but it would surely be done (repeated) in the early phase of secondary education. PM. The animation at wikipedia for the sine is fairly good, but one would want to be able to manipulate the position, and the choice of yellow for the vertical position is too light.

At the end of highschool, students should be able to deal with radians and sine and cosine. Those functions remain key because of the derivatives. However, the working horses will likely be Xur and Yur, for in trigonometry it is natural to work with turns.

Acknowledgement and word of protest

Above idea basically builds upon Trig Rerigged 1.0 from 2008. The issue here is didactics of trigonometry.

Michael Hartl published a tau manifesto in 2010, and MSC published a reply pi manifesto. The issue here is rather curious. Hartl explains his approach: “π is a confusing and unnatural choice for the circle constant.” This doesn’t concern didactics but concerns some notion of naturalness in some mathematical universe, as if criteria in mathematics itself would force a choice between either Θ or π. I don’t think that this is a relevant way to formulate the issue or discuss it. There is no need for an “archi manifesto” since the relevant issue has been stated in terms of didactics of mathematics in above books. Also, tau is an awkward choice of symbol, for it looks too much like the symbol r for the radius, especially in the handwriting of students.

Still, I read these manifestos and benefited from aspects of them, notably since this gave me the idea to define the hook disk as the disk with area 1, so that we can better see the underlying unity of the notion of angle or hook. Thus I acknowledge the contributions, but also must protest that it doesn’t help when these manifestos divert attention away from the proper question on didactics.

Earlier weblog texts on this issue have been here and here and this animation. On the use of H, see here.

The road from science and scientific discovery into political discussion is often via the channel of a particular party. Politicians of any party are less likely to discuss an idea when there is no party advocating it anyway.

In the USA, members of the Senate and House are elected via districts, which is District Representation. This likely caused the division between two main parties, Democrats and Republicans. The situation likely causes that there are a lot of Think Tanks that want to reach out across the division, to inform voters directly on their various own approaches. For Think Tanks it is important to find at least one representative who is willing to support their case. Bipartisan support is nice but not always necessary, as one can always wait for the next turn in the political cycle.

In Holland, there is Proportional Representation (PR). With 150 seats, it takes only 1 / 150 = 0.67% of the nation-wide vote to get a new party into Parliament. When an issue is important enough to start a Think Tank on it, then likely at least 0.67% of the voters would care about it nation-wide, and then it might be better to start its own party rather than a Think Tank. Political parties in Holland have their own “scientific bureau“, that can inform the rest of the world about their analyses.

This paper of mine compares DR and PR, with the example of the UK, and concludes that the Dutch system is most democratic. See also the short discussion of this in Mathematics Teaching 222 in the context of the UK referendum on PR in 2011.

Baudet starts a think tank rather than a party

Thierry Baudet (1983) started in 2015 a Think Tank “Forum voor Democratie” (FvD) (forum for democracy).

Unfortunately the FvD English page currently still gives a Dutch text on their mission. Let me translate. Their stated mission is to fight the deterioration of democracy and improve its quality e.g. by means of referenda and direct elections of mayors. They also want to move power from the EU back to Holland. They want a strict system of “green cards” for immigrants. They explain their perceived link of democracy to the latter by that “uncontrolled immigration threathens social peace” (my translation). (Like in Brexit, immigration pops up at unlogical spots, as if people stop thinking when the subject arises.)

It is remarkable that Baudet thinks that he cannot get 0.67% of the vote for such a noble cause as the defence of democracy. In Holland, the political party D66 also wants to improve democracy, but they are pro-EU and not anti-EU, and thus he cannot join up. However, as a Think Tank, Baudet would be forced to collaborate a lot with D66, because of the shared view on democracy.

Perhaps it might be easier to start a niche Think Tank rather than a political party though: for, a party requires capable representatives. It may also be a matter of temperament, as Baudet states that he has no affinity with politics itself and wants to remain “independent”. It is okay for other people to follow him but he will not follow others.

Baudet and his FvD helped initiating the 2016 Dutch referendum on the EU Treaty with the Ukraine, see my discussion here and here. Baudet is also prominent in the petition, discussed in the former weblog text. There I promised to look a bit closer at Baudet’s views, which I will do here.

A bit on Baudet’s background

Today’s society cannot do without education. It is always useful to look at what people got their diploma in. This is not intended for an ad hominem argument but helps to clarify their field of competence and way of thinking. The theme of the “Two Cultures” by C.P. Snow indicates that we must be alert on bridging gaps. (See e.g. here.) When people age and grow more experienced, they will tend to diversify from their diploma, but it is seldom that a person from the humanities acquires a taste for science and mathematics as well.

Baudet’s cv doesn’t state whether he did gymnasium A or B. Generally students with gymnasium B tend to specify this though. Also given his later studies in history and law there is a great likelihood that Baudet did A. We should not expect insight in science and mathematics.

He got a bachelor in history in 2006. At Vox Europ 2012 “The EU is an empire, and empires mean war“, the website claims that he would be a historian too, but generally this label would be reserved for masters, and Vox Europ better corrects the claim.

Observe that the general label “historian” is vague too. It is generally better when people study a particular field before they look into the history of that field. It is awkward to look at an issue in the past when you don’t know about the very field of study itself. Grand themes might be an exception since it is impossible to study everything, but check out this discussion on David Armitage.

Baudet’s 2012 thesis,The significance of borders. Why representative government and the rule of law requires nation states“, is a thesis in law, supervised by law professor Paul Cliteur and philosopher Roger Scruton. Thus it is not a thesis in history, though the thesis refers to historical events.

PM 1. The other members of the thesis commission are in law too, except for Alfred van Staden who is a political scientist and professor in international relations. Would he vouch for these aspects in this thesis ? PM 2. The meaning of a thesis is that it is one way of showing that you are qualified to do scientific reseach in that particular field. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you fully proved a particular argument. PM 3. An objective of a thesis is that the new doctor learns modesty about what can actually be proven. PM 4. Cliteur states on his website that he looks at issues of free speech, see also his lecture. I informed him about the censorship of science since 1990 by the directorate of CPB, and he doesn’t show an interest. Apparently Cliteur doesn’t see that it is a no-brainer to say that religious fundamentalism and terrorists who abuse religion present a problem to free speech. Those groups enjoy that he pays attention to them because they thrive on attention and it makes them more important than they are. In the mean time, Cliteur doesn’t defend the freedom of scientific thought right on his doorsteps, while it would be important for a free society that such defence is provided.

I am still looking for a review of Baudet’s thesis by an independent reader.

Potentially the mentioned short Vox Europ article has the same theme as the thesis. The scheme of that short article is that imperialism causes wars, that nationalism is opposite to imperialism, and (thus) that nationalism would support peace. Also Baudet classifies the EU as imperialist. Whether these definitions and statements are supported by scientists working in this field remains to be seen. I am more inclined to interprete developments in terms of political economy, and I haven’t read a key (convincing) statement by Baudet yet why his approach from law should generate key conclusions.

For example, Robert Mundell’s theory of the optimal currency area starts from economics and then provides some historical data that confirm the point. It is open for falsification from history. Baudet seems to turn this around, and starts with historical cases like Napoleon or the USSR and transfers insights to the present EU. This complicates the issue very much, since it suggests that we all must be historians of Napoleon and the USSR before we might discuss the EU. Instead, I prefer a background in political economy, and look at the EU and its future, while I am open for falsifications by historians who suggest parallels in their area of study.

For example, Deirdre McCloskey in her work as economic historian started out from economic theory and the philosophies of ethics and liberty before she discovered the key role of Holland around 1650 in the transformation from the Middle Ages towards the modern world economy. I think that McCloskey is a fine economist and historian, and her discovery of the key role of virtue ethics in this historical process is very convincing – i.e. the change of the social view of the merchant as a robber towards that of admiration and high social status, with the whole social infrastructure of bourgeois society supporting that change of perception. A good historian is always aware that one should not read modern ideas into the past. However, scientific laws are the same over time, and economic processes work the same too.

Incidently, Hubert Smeets, a journalist who has been reporting about Russia and the former USSR over many years, suggested in NRC-Handelsblad last weeks, that Baudet, Kelder & Wellens (from the inititative) would have compared the EU to the former USSR. This is a strong accusation, since the USSR was a totalitarian state. Wellens asked the NRC Ombudsman for a correction. The Ombudsman Sjoerd de Jong gave a fallacious reply. This is my deconstruction (in Dutch) of this affair. Conclusion: Smeets made a false accusation. Baudet’s comparison concerns imperialism which is a different issue, and what Baudet wrote by himself doesn’t have to be supported by Kelder & Wellens. The Dutch Ombudsmen do not work well, see my letter of 2013 to the international organisation of Ombudsmen.

Comparison with Hans van Mierlo and D66 who are pro-EU

In 1966, master of law and journalist Hans van Mierlo (1931-2010) founded the political party D66 (“Democrats ’66”). The “crown jewels” of D66 are: (1) a change from PR to DR, (2) direct elections of mayors and prime minister, and (3) referenda. Thus:

  • Baudet cannot join D66 or their scientific bureau (named after Van Mierlo who didn’t do science) since they are pro-EU and he is anti-EU. But he would be forced to collaborate with D66 a lot because of the shared views on the “crown jewels” (except perhaps DR ?).
  • Scientific analysis of democracy shows that these D66 “crown jewels” actually are less democratic. See my book “Voting theory for democracy“.
  • As far as I know, Hans van Mierlo never studied democracy and its electoral systems. Van Mierlo only was in love with the USA of JFK, and in Holland in the 1960s these ideas sounded new.
  • As far as I know, nobody else in D66 studies democracy. See how they disinform the UK.
  • As far as I know, Baudet never studied democracy and its electoral systems either. I am not aware of a clarification by him why D66 never succeeded w.r.t. its crown jewels. Apparently, Baudet only buys uncritically into the propaganda by D66 as if referenda and direct elections would be more democratic. Curiously, Baudet’s 2012 thesis,The significance of borders. Why representative government and the rule of law requires nation states“, discusses representative democracy and not “democracy” by plebiscite.
  • The Brexit referendum is rather disastrous from the scientific view on democracy, but it requires some study – see here – to cut through the dogma that a referendum is pure democracy by definition.
Legalistic / Popular Scientific
Pro EU and euro Van Mierlo, D66: crown jewels
Anti EU and euro Baudet, FvD: referenda, direct elections, vague on DR vs PR
Pragmatic on EU and euro Me, SvHG: anti-crown jewels

When Van Mierlo deceased in 2010, I honoured him with the pamphlet “Laat D66 zichzelf opheffen” (Let D66 abolish itself). About the dead nothing but good, and the pamphlet was intended as an antidote for his sectarian followers in D66 who might turn him into a saint and martyr of democracy. Observe that I signed this pamphlet under my personal and not scientific name, since it is a personal political opinion that a political party better abolishes itself.

Pamphlet 2010: Let D66 abolish itself

Pamphlet 2010: Let D66 abolish itself

PM. There is also the Dutch LibDem Party (LDP), founded in 2006 by Sammy van Tuyll. They are social liberal like D66, like my suggestion from 1993 of a Social Liberal Forum (SLF). Van Tuyll has a background in medicine, economics and law, and should be able to understand my economic analysis. It is not clear to me why he doesn’t study and discuss it. Van Tuyll and I met in 2007 and I explained about the censorship of science, and it didn’t ring a bell. I can only suppose that when Van Tuyll ever is elected into government then he will continue with the censorship of science by the Dutch government.

Meeting Baudet in 2010

I met Thierry Baudet at a book presentation in 2010, when he was co-editor with Michiel Visser of a collection of essays on conservatism. My comment at the book presentation was that a good starting point would be the natural conservatism in classical liberalism as formulated by J.S. Mill and J.M. Keynes. Of course my background is in economics. The book title suggests the conundrum that conservatism actually is progressive, but the content of the book did not clearly resolve this conundrum. Overall I thought that the book was useful, but did not feel that I should buy the second volume.

I gave Baudet a copy of the book by Hans Hulst & Auke Hulst in collaboration with me (1998) Werkloosheid en armoede, de oplossing die werkt” (W&A) (Unemployment and poverty, the solution that works). In response, Baudet gave me his business card, whence I sent him a note on the next day, April 13 2010, to confirm contact. The card and this link show that Baudet was already active in improving democracy.

Baudet's business card of 2010, referring to Dutch Parliament with 150 representatives

Baudet’s business card of 2010, referring to Dutch Parliament with 150 representatives

My presumption was that Baudet would read W&A, and that there would be a discussion proceeding from there. In some interviews Baudet is portrayed with stacks of books in the background so there is the suggestion that he might read books. However, while I read the book that he and Visser edited, I did not get a reply on W&A and neither on my suggestion to have a further discussion. One possibility is that he was too busy with his 2012 thesis (though W&A is relevant for that topic too). But after completion of the thesis, there still is no sign of interest.

There is my warning from January 2012 to various young Dutch intellectuals who might come across as “Young Turks“, including Baudet, that they should not forget about the need for a solid scientific approach to change of society. I knew that Baudet was a PhD student but not that he would present his thesis in June that year. Perhaps Baudet thought this warning superfluous since he was working on that thesis at that time. Perhaps it is okay to put on blinders for a thesis when finishing it. The very purpose of a thesis however is to teach you the scientific attitude that one should not neglect criticism.

In 2012 I highlighted the issue that now surfaces in the petition again, namely the link between the EU and euro crises to the censorship of science by the directorate of the CPB.

If Baudet and his FvD are so much interested in improving democracy, why are they not interested in my analysis of the failure of Trias Politica, and the need for an extension with a constitutional Economic Supreme Court ? Why doesn’t Baudet write a review of “De ontketende Kiezer” (2003) ? Why this island mentality and burking and elbowing out of views of others ?

Baudet doesn’t inform Kelder & Wellens at

Baudet in 2015 collaborated with master of law and journalist Jort Kelder and management accountant Arno Wellens on the petition that wants an enquiry by Parliament about the creation and future of the euro. See my discussion of in the former weblog entry.

Kelder & Wellens confirm to me that Baudet did not inform them about W&A and this warning of mine of 2012 to the “Young Turks”. If they want Parliament to provide “full information”, then I would hope that they themselves acknowledge that they had a glitch in their own information amongst themselves. They disinformed the 40,000+ people who signed their petition.

Because of Baudet’s neglect since 2010 of key information about economics and censorship of science, there now is this initiative that focuses only on the euro, while the relevant enquiry should be about unemployment, role CPB … and euro. The euro is only a symptom, and an addition to what went wrong already before.


Jort Kelder, Arno Wellens and Thierry Baudet, screenshot 2015-12-14

Council of Recommendation

The format of a Think Tank for Baudet’s FvD allows academics to join up in a council of recommendation, too, which some might find problematic if it were a political party.

Member of the FvD council of recommendation are professors in constitutional law Jos Teunissen and Twan Tak. They should understand my approach that there should be no taxation on minimum earnings. See the short text “Don’t tax sweat“.  Teunissen has this useful text “Vrijheid, gelijkheid en belastingen” (2010) on couples, but it is better to start with individuals, and then see DRGTPE p131-132 on couples. Constitutional lawyers should also understand the failure of the Trias Politica model of democracy and the need for an Economic Supreme Court (per nation).

Seeing the names of Teunissen and Tak causes the hope that they will be able to explain these things to the other members of the council, and that all agree that FvD can be abolished as it has been based upon a wrong analysis, neglect by Baudet and disinformation since 2010.

Here we find Baudet’s thesis advisors Paul Cliteur and Roger Scruton again. Obviously the thesis differs from the mission of FvD and it is a bit remarkable that the supervisors travel along, though the direction of travelling might also have been the other way around (from Euroskeptism towards thesis).

To my surprise I also see: Deirdre McCloskey ! After some search, though, we see that Baudet explains in his cv that he taught “between 2010 and 2011” at Arjo Klamer’s school “Academia Vitae” (though it filed for bankruptcy in February 2010), when Jos de Beus (1952-2013) got ill. McCloskey may have taught at this school too. Arjo Klamer was close to De Beus and gave an impressive presentation at the memorial meeting – see my comments on this. It is important to know that Jos de Beus did not understand Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem for collective decision making. It is important to know that there is a line in economic theory from Jan Tinbergen to his PhD student Hans van den Doel to me, with a floundering branch to political theorist Jos de Beus, who collaborated with Van den Doel. Jos de Beus and I met when I presented Van den Doel with the Samuel van Houten Penning in 1994. We had occasional contact but to no effect.

As an economist, Arjo Klamer could help out by studying my work, but he doesn’t. Klamer however is also in the council of recommendation of FvD. For some reason, economists Klamer and McCloskey prefer Baudet’s non-economic approach in theory of law above my development in economic theory from Jan Tinbergen and Hans van den Doel. If only they studied my analysis and stated why they disagree, but now the world must wonder why they don’t look at it at all. And why would they not understand that they cannot see the full analysis yet, because of the censorship ? Ergo, that this censorship must be lifted ?

A member of the FvD council of recommendation is philosopher Ad Verbrugge. He is founding chairman of “Beter Onderwijs Nederland” (BON) (for “Better Education”). At the website of BON, some mathematicians are slandering about my work on mathematics education. Verbrugge doesn’t do anything about this. There is this letter of 2009 (my website has moved to I have rephrased some questions again this Summer for fellow math teacher Karin den Heijer, now board member of BON, see page 11 here.

The link to mathematics education is important. See my letter to the president of KNAW and directorate of CPB 2016, that explains that maltreatment of my work on mathematics education hinders other people to also see the value of my work in economics.

Member of this council of recommendation is Kees de Lange, emeritus professor in physics and former chair of an association on pensions NPB. De Lange might have looked at my suggestions on mathematics education, see my suggestion on what physicists might do. I am not impressed by De Lange’s understanding of economics. I am not aware of someone in the Dutch world of pensions who warned about the 2007+ crisis. In 2009 I contacted De Lange as chairman of NBP and informed him about the censorship of science since 1990 by the directorate of CPB. His reply was sympathetic to my feelings, as if that were a relevant issue, and that NBP did not look into economic analyses, and that my approach might only be discussed when shared by more economists (but they didn’t look at analyses anyway). I came away from this with the impression that De Lange was lost, both as a scientist and chairman of NBP. Later in 2010 De Lange helped found a political party 50Plus, he was elected in the Dutch Senate as member of a two-man fraction of OSF 2011-2015, but then continued independently.

PM. At this spot it is useful to mention that Baudet, Wellens and De Lange also perform in video channel “Cafe Weltschmerz“, created by (bachelor in business and marketing) journalist Willem Middelkoop (LinkedIn), who after the 2007+ crisis got rich by telling people to get into gold rather than have a parliamentarian enquiry into unemployment and censorship since 1990 by the directorate of CPB. One of Middelkoop’s books was published by Amsterdam University Press and by standard arrangement adopted by the University of Chicago Press, but it should have been accepted at neither place since there is no link to science. See my discussion of the gold bugs. One supposes that Middelkoop likes it when Baudet, Wellens and De Lange continue to create uncertainty amongst viewers, so that the market for gold as a “safe haven” remains strong. It is a pity, though, that this circus also draws in young people looking for answers, like psychiatrist Esther van Fenema (wiki) and mathematician Anna Grebenchtchikova (LinkedIn) and lawyer Hester Bais. They, with their higher education that should guard them, might be falling in the journalistic trap to look at symptoms rather than causes.

Member of the council of recommendation is Tom Zwart, professor of international and European law, since 2007 director of the Dutch School of Human Rights Research. Perhaps freedom of expression is also a human right of a scientist ? Or is the option to do science no human right ?

Member of the council of recommendation are other economists Edin Mujagic, Bruno de Haas and Daniel Lacalle. Let me invite them to study my work, starting with DRGTPE (before the crisis) and CSBH (after the crisis). Mujagic hasn’t responded yet, though my analysis dates from the fall of the Berlin Wall, that also affected his past. Lacalle is a hedgefund manager and could get very rich if he would start supporting my analysis (supporting the boycott of Holland, explaining to all that it is needed, and speculating on it).

Last but not least there is Theodore Dalrymple, who might be very happy to finally understand why the Dutch welfare state isn’t working as it is supposed to.

Thierry Baudet and Paul Scheffer

At “Cafe Weltschmerz” there is also this (tedious) interview of Paul Scheffer (1954, like me, Angela Merkel and Franςois Hollande) by Baudet on the Dutch referendum on the treaty of the EU with the Ukraine. Scheffer states that he would vote Yes for the treaty. Baudet participated in setting up the referendum, with the objective that people would vote No. It is fine that they can have this civilised talk, though it was so tedious that I quit watching after 10 minutes (though the referendum has already taken place).

Baudet was for one year a post-doc in 2013 with Paul Scheffer who has a chair in European studies in Tilburg. Originally, Scheffer first wrote a popular book on migration and the multicultural society, and then turned this into a thesis for Tilburg. The Leiden professor of social history Leo Lucassen stepped down from the promotion committee in protest that not enough had been done to make it a real thesis.

Scheffer did highschool HBS A, and graduated in political science in 1986. In his student years he joined the Dutch communist party, and later switched to the social democratic PvdA. He was at the Wiardi Beckman Stichting (WBS), the “scientific bureau” of PvdA in 1986-1992.

I was a member of PvdA in 1974-1991. When I was at CPB in 1982-1991 I developed my analysis on unemployment, with the conceptual breakthrough when the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 caused me to look at some fundamentals. My analysis was censored by the directorate. I sent a copy of my 1990 paper to Parliament, so that all parties were informed, and I was free to contact PvdA of which I was a member. I contacted WBS, and I assumed that fellow social democratic scientists would be interested in an analysis on unemployment. To my great surprise and dismay, they were not. See the letter reproduced in “De ontketende kiezer” (2003) p128. See my discussion “Soms loopt het zo” in “Trias Politica & Centraal Planbureau” (1994). My contact was with fellow econometrician Paul de Beer. I met Scheffer at a PvdA convention at that time so he was in the know. I met Scheffer again at the memorial service of Jos de Beus. I later discovered that Paul de Beer was an adherent of the idea of a basic income. See my discussion about the sectarian behaviour around basic income.

Director of WBS in 1989-2006 was Paul Kalma. I had had some contacts with earlier director Joop van den Berg (1981-1989), now fellow at the Dutch Montesquieu institute. The idea that there are drawbacks to the Trias Politica structure hasn’t arrived there yet.

When Holland succeeds in having this parliamentarian enquiry on unemployment and the role of the CPB … and the euro … then these events at WBS would be important to look into as well. As said at the beginning, the road from science and scientific discovery into political discussion is often via the channel of a particular party. Politicians of any party are less likely to discuss an idea when there is no party advocating it anyway. Thus it is very relevant to know why social democratic researchers at WBS were and still are not interested in a new approach to unemployment. I will be interested in hearing what has been happening as well. Obviously, Parliament will be hesitant to ask questions, since WBS is protected by the aura of science and by that parties will not easily look into dealings of other parties. But the notion of “scientific bureau” better be taken seriously, and scientists should be familiar with the idea of answering questions. Perhaps Thierry Baudet can already ask Paul Scheffer what his recollections are, and why Scheffer didn’t and still doesn’t do anything about the censorship when he heard about it.

The three Pauls (De Beer, Kalma, Scheffer), in 1991 at WBS (wikimedia commons and website De Beer)

The three Pauls: De Beer, Kalma, Scheffer, who were in 1990-1991 at WBS (wikimedia commons and website De Beer)

When a petition (“civil initiative“) in Holland achieves 40,000 signatures then it is mandatory for Dutch Parliament to pay attention to it, and formulate an answer.

The right to petition is old. The right to petition is in the Magna Carta of 1215. In Holland, the petition in 1566 by the nobles to Margaret of Parma is still taught in schools as a first step to the 80 year liberation war from Habsburg Spain in 1568-1648.

Famien_Strada_Histoire-Smeekschrift_der_Edelen-ppn087811480_MG_8892-T1p287In 2016, a letter to Parliament might be enough. Perhaps the issue can be resolved when Parliament (existing parties) indeed pay attention. But Parliament might not pay attention as it is too busy with its own petitions to the cabinet. Citizens with an issue might unite in a political party and get a seat in Parliament, but then there might be one-issue parties. Thus, the procedure for such a civil initiative and the criterion of 40,000 signatures make some sense. Dutch wikipedia (a portal no source) has a list of such petitions since 2006.

My scientific endeavour caused me to propose two petitions: (1) to have a Parliamentarian enquiry into unemployment and role of the Central Planning Bureau … and the euro, (2) to have a Parliamentarian enquiry into mathematics education and its research and policy making. Let us momentarily ignore the second one on math ed and its research, and focus on the economy.

There are two other petitions on the economy that require some attention. These have been caused by popular worry on the 2007+ crisis and not by scientific endeavour. Thus, let us discuss these three petitions to Dutch Parliament:

  1. Ons Geld (our money): a petition to have a different system of money and banking, with nationalisation of seigniorage, e.g. 100% fraction reserve banking. Their general website apparently is different, and is here. They want Parliament not just to study but to accept a principle.
  2. a petition to have a Parliamentarian enquiry into the creation and policy options for the euro.
  3. My petition to have a Parliamentarian enquiry into unemployment and role of the Central Planning Bureau … and the euro. Dutch readers would benefit from my discussion in 2013 (three pages) of euro 2.0 and a new system of money and banking.

From a position in science, the first 2 petitions are misleading to the people. They don’t focus on the real problem in the crisis and distract from the 3rd petition. They also abuse public worries about the crisis for the hobby horses of the initiators. These initiators found 40,000+ people willing to sign up, but the initiatiors did not give these people full information about the 3rd option. The initiators regard democracy as a beauty contest for the attention of the masses and not as an obligation to first arrive at sound information.

Thus, when Parliament evalutates the law on civil initiatives, it might look into rules how to better deal with information.

  • It would be important to know what individual members and Parliament as a whole accept as information. There is often reference to “science” but scientists have various analyses. A petition for a Parliamentarian enquiry might be superfluous when Parliament can already state what it “knows”. Such an enquiry however is useful for finding new information – e.g. via testimonials by experts.
  • Parliament already has a list of incoming data (with a difference between data and information). People might check these data too, but perhaps there can be a Parliamentarian institution turning these data into information.
  • People who want to embark upon a petition might be assisted in the identification of what isn’t known yet, and should also accept the responsibility of scientists to include information that might be new to them and respond to criticism, so that they don’t impose upon social time needlessly for what it essentially their own process of learning.
Petition 1. Ons Geld: 100% reserve banking and nationalisation of seigniorage

Steps in the petition proceedings were:

  1. Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch minister of finance, replying to the petition in his letter of Feb 1 2016, rejected a change in the present system of money and banking.
  2. For the Parliamentarian debate there were different motions.
  3. The motion by Wouter Koolmees (D66) was accepted, to make it easier to have a 100% fraction reserve bank. Potentially, deposit insurance premiums might be reduced, but not fully abolished, since bad investments are not excluded (except in my scheme in “Money as gold versus money as water” (2013)).
  4. The motion by Pieter Omtzigt (CDA) to have a deeper study by the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) apparently is still under consideration. However, Jeroen Dijsselbloem apparently accepted the suggestion during the debate, and the WRR now has a weblink about this planned study. At WRR, a key position is by Arnoud Boot, professor of financial markets, at UvA. Boot has been prominent in the Dutch discussion on the 2007+ crisis.
  5. Jeroen Dijsselbloem, in his letter of June 21 2016, reviews current policy. He doesn’t refer to the WRR study like it doesn’t exist or would be relevant.

Thus, the petition started by non-scientists, and their request has been channeled towards science.

The initiators might have asked Arnoud Boot directly – by phone or email or at a conference or by organising a small conference themselves – whether he would be willing to look into this issue and try to get some WRR backing. There have been plenty of academics and policy researchers who have looked into the notion of 100% reserve banking, see for example the Benes & Kumhof IMF 2012 working paper, that revisits the Chicago Plan of 1936 by Irving Fisher and others. A researcher alerted me to Charles A. E. Goodhart and Meinhard A. Jensen,”A Commentary on Patrizio LainaÌ’s ‘Proposals for Full-Reserve Banking: A Historical Survey from David Ricardo to Martin Wolf´“, Economic Thought Vol 4, No 2, 2015.

The advantage of the petition however might be that now it is the minister of finance who asked WRR. It might be less easy for the minister to neglect the report once it arrives because he himself asked for it. However, such WRR reports tend to cause ministers no real problems.

A key problem would be that seigniorage now is under control of the European Central Bank (ECB) and that the Maastricht Treaty would require amendment which would not be achieved easily. However, the EU is managed by crises by management, and there will be plenty of crises requiring new adaptations.

Irving Fisher (1933) and Arnoud Boot (ca. 2010), Wikimedia Commons (photo Christiaan Krouwels)

Irving Fisher (1933) and Arnoud Boot (ca. 2010), Wikimedia Commons (photo Christiaan Krouwels)

A guarded compliment for Dutch Parliament

Overall, I find the process still is a bit surprising. It was Parliament that created this new law on petitions, and Parliament can be complimented that it dealt with the petition by proper procedure.

Undoubtedly, all political parties already had ideas by themselves about money and banking. They didn’t need this petition to discuss the topic. However, the media reported on the initiative, and it touched a nerve in public worry about the 2007+ crisis, and thus the existing political parties in Parliament were alerted on their role as representatives of the people in general. Apparently, the petition caused a temporary focus on some aspects that they enjoyed discussing.

The end result that there will be a study by WRR could also have been achieved otherwise, but overall the petition allowed Parliament to show how Parliament can work on its better days. Except that it is a pity that Parliament did not discuss my letter that explained what in this petition was misleading.

Why the Ons Geld petition is essentially misleading

The economist in this group is Ad Broere, now independent consultant. It is unclear to me whether he is a general economist or a business economist, but he taught financial management and management accounting. I don’t see when the petition started but I informed Broere in April 2013 about this weblog of mine and about my approach to Euro 2.0, and did not get a reply. I find this problematic. Isn’t Broere interested in fellow economists who look into a similar issue ?

The Ons Geld documentation refers to engineer and non-economist Klaas van Egmond, who supposes a stock of money as large as GDP (= 1 in the model MV = PY) so that 1% growth in the stock of money (seigniorage under full reserve banking) amounts to 6 bn euro’s (page 13 of their document, or p645 in Van Egmond & De Vries ESB 4721, November 5 2015). They also seem to forget that banks use current seigniorage to pay for costs. They sugggest that all seigniorage can be taken by the government without the need for bank to raise transaction fees. Taking seigniorage away from banks might also be seen as the government introducing a tax on banks that they must recuperate in fees. The email exchange with Van Egmond on this is here. Any economist who looks into this proposal should spot these misleading assumption. It is curious that ESB let this paper be published. Any banker can tell these initiators that they tend to neglect the costs of operating a money system. Indeed Wim Boonstra in the same issue of ESB explains about costs.

There is also Dirk Bezemer who is only an advisor to the Ons Geld group, but he claims a position in science, and in fact recently in June 2016 was appointed as economics professor in Groningen which I protest about.

I already discussed this Ons Geld petition when observing that Dirk Bezemer disinformed Dutch Parliament in 2015. Before that, he disinformed Sweden in 2012, and after that he disinformed Radar TV in 2016.

A strange interaction between Van Egmond and Bezemer

Klaas van Egmond in both ESB and his presentation for Parliament refers to the article by Bezemer 2009 “No one saw this coming“. Apparently, Van Egmond has not read this article since he misrepresents its message.

The crisis of 2008 was not or hardly forseeable: “no one saw this coming” (Bezemer, 2009).” or in Dutch: “De crisis van 2008 was niet of nauwelijks te voorzien (…)

However, Bezemer really stated (VoxEU column):

“One result from such reflection would be that in fact, many had predicted this course of events for years. In a recent study (Bezemer 2009), I document the economists who did “see it coming”. At least a dozen serious analysts issued fairly detailed, well reasoned, and public warnings of imminent finance-induced recession.

They were apparently ignored by Stevens and other central bankers who then, as Alan Greenspan professed in his October 2008 testimony, watched with “shocked disbelief” as their “whole intellectual edifice collapse in the summer [of 2007]”. The official models they relied on missed the crisis not because the conditions were so unusual, as we are often told. They missed it by design.”

More on Dirk Bezemer 1

Bezemer’s background is in agricultural economics (thesis 2001). This need not be a problem. Jeroen Dijsselbloem is an agricultural economist, and there it is a problem. John Kenneth Galbraith started as an agricultural economist too, and I am much in favour of Galbraith, so this background itself should not prevent Bezemer from studying other issues too. It might actually be beneficial to have more background than only a focus on money as often happens with monetary economists. Bezemer came to money and banking via the notion of risk, the collapse of the Albanian economy due to a Ponzi scheme, and the crisis of 2007+.

Scientists should reply to criticism by fellow scientists. If Bezemer doesn’t reply to criticism and proceeds in disinforming others then his claim on being a scientist is up for grabs.

Bezemer had the bad luck that his paper “No one saw this coming” of 2009 got the fancy of readers who worried about the economic crisis. He got a subsidy from INET. Apparently he doesn’t want this success to be tainted by having to reply to criticism.

  • Just to be sure: I am very specific w.r.t. my criticism of 2009  w.r.t. Bezemer’s paper of 2009. If he would provide an answer perhaps this criticism might be resolved.
  • In 2016 there however are the additional questions:
    • why it takes so long to answer to criticism of 2009,
    • why he misleads people by not responding to criticism, including now his co-authors or own PhD students Kristiana Rozite, Joeri Schasfoort, Maria Grydaki, Anna Samarina and Lu Zhang, or his contacts in the Bank of England (BoE),
    • why he didn’t spot Klaas van Egmond’s errors: (a) on the stock of money, (b) on bank costs, (c) on misquoting his own paper,
    • why he doesn’t support my protest against censorship of science since 1990 in Holland. Like we had “Albanian (Ponzi) economics” and “Greek statistics” we also have “Dutch economic science” and one would expect scientists to protest about this.
More on Dirk Bezemer 2

In a google for this weblog text I also found an interview in English with both Lex Hoogduin and Dirk Bezemer in 2014 about the “pluralist” course in money and finance that they teach at the university of Groningen (also my alma mater).

Apparently, this “pluralist” approach still excludes reference to my work (DRGTPE and CSBH). It is also awkward to read such such interviews. I warned about developments before the crisis but neither Hoogduin nor Bezemer warned about the crisis but make a living of explaining it after the fact. Hoogduin was personal advisor of Wim Duisenberg and thus would be a prime witness for the Parliamentarian enquiry discussed below.

Bezemer states:

“(…) almost nobody saw it coming. Those who did see it coming, where rather obscure economists working in the Post-Keynesian and Austrian traditions.” (Bezemer, p6, first column, bottom)

  1. This is a misrepresentation of history. There is much more to the explanation of the crisis than what Bezemer makes of it. This is not a trivial issue. The diagnosis is relevant for the treatment. When you only see half of the explanation – since you willfully ignore criticism – then your policy advice will also be biased.
  2. There were more people warning, including me. Let Bezemer reply to my criticism. I am no obscure economist. I am part and parcel of the tradition of Jan Tinbergen and the Dutch Central Planning Bureau. I am an economist who is censored and ignored by deliberation.
  3. Bezemer shifts the meaning of his own analysis. Has he forgotton what he wrote, and is he starting to believe the quote in his title ?
  4. Hyman Minski was no obscure economist. The post-keynesian and Austrian traditions are well-known in economics, i.e. for people who study economics who aren’t of a one-track mind. Much is also in Maynard Keynes, who clearly included the uncertainty of the future into the conceptual model (e.g. “animal spirits”). “Post-Keynesian” might often read as Keynesian as well.
  5. It may well be that central banking economists like Lex Hoogduin forgot about Minski but that doesn’t make Minski obscure but it rather makes Hoogduin less competent. It is not as competent as well how Hoogduin treats my analysis, e.g. in the context of Peter Bofinger‘s visit to Amsterdam in 2012.

Bezemer also states:

“Thanks to research grants, I can put my money where my mouth is.” (Bezemer, p6, second column, bottom)

This is a wrong application of the proverb. Putting your money where your mouth is concerns your own money, not the money of other people received as research grants.

PM. Edin Mujagic and murdering money

I now found this text by Edin Mujagic who argues that the Ons Geld petition is rather superfluous, and that the focus should be not on banks but on Central Banking. I agree with much of this. However, it would be a change in the system of money and banking when economic agents could have accounts at the Central Bank at very low cost, see my paper “Money as gold versus money as water” (2013). The Central Bank doesn’t have to make investments since it can always print money, and also print money to run the system. A transaction fee however makes sense since it involves human activity. Also, it is better to first have an Economic Supreme Court before discussing changes in Central Banking. Mujagic has a recent book on central banking that I haven’t read and likely will not read, since it is better that he first reads my earlier analysis. Mujagic collaborated with Thierry Baudet on the latter’s Forum voor Democratie, about which later on.

Petition 2. A Parliamentarian enquiry into the creation and policy options for the euro

The petition was started by doctor of law Thierry Baudet (1983), master of law Jort Kelder (1964) and management accountant Arno Wellens (ca. 1988). Steps in the proceedings have been:

  1. When the petition had 38,000 signatures, there was this useful tv-interview with Kelder by journalist Sven Kockelmann (1969) (March 30 2015).
  2. After the petition got its 40,000+ signatures, there was a meeting of the Parliamentarian committee where the petitioneers presented their case (Video December 14 2015).
  3. Jeroen Dijsselbloem restated the position of the Dutch government, with the main point that the euro had been created in a democratic process (letter July 13 2016).
  4. The Parliamentarian committee will look into this when returning from the Summer vacation.
  5. PM. Political parties are busy with their programmes for the Dutch general elections of March 2017.

In NRC-Handelsblad Baudet, Kelder & Wellens warned “the Dutch elite” that there might be a Nexit if public concern isn’t handled properly. They got a reply by economists Steven Brakman & Harry Garretsen, and there is a short deconstruction by Ron Ritzen. Note that Kelder doesn’t want a Nexit but only wants to leave the euro and only warns about the risk about a Next.

Kelder and Wellens versus Baudet

Kelder and Wellens show much interest in money & wealth and its frauds.This interest might have seduced them to embrace the petition, not hindered by a deeper study of political economy (Dutch “staathuishoudkunde”).

Kelder studied law, became a journalist, was chief editor of Quote magazine (a Dutch version of Forbes) and started his own digital magazine (“nine to five”) of which Wellens is chief editor. Kelder is well-connected and counts Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte as one of his friendly contacts from the students days and young liberals JOVD. Mark Rutte studied history, and not economics, and still is an adept of Margaret Thatcher.

In the interview by Kockelmann, Kelder states that he was invited by Baudet. In 2010 I gave Baudet a copy of the book by Hans Hulst and Auke Hulst in collaboration with me, “Werkloosheid en armoede, de oplossing die werkt(1998). Readers of English may be helped by this part of the analysis “Don’t tax sweat“. I asked Kelder & Wellens whether Baudet had informed them about this, and they said “No”. At a Parliamentarian enquiry, Baudet might explain why he invited Kelder without giving full information, and Kelder might explain why he is happy with this.


On the question what news Kelder wants to see, Kelder rather dodges the question.

  1. Duisenberg (1935-2005, age 70) is deceased. A point of him is that people like Lubbers, Kok, Zalm and Bolkestein are still alive, and that there still is the opportunity to record their views. They are no longer in Parliament. However, they already presented their views in Parliament in the past. Their positions have been well documented. Readers and listeners of Dutch can see the video of “Geschiedenis24” of Black Monday of the Maastricht Treaty.
  2. According to Kelder many people accept the euro without studying it. If Parliament would have public hearings then people would start paying attention. This “media circus” however is not the purpose of a Parliamentarian enquiry. The purpose is to collect information for law making. Thus, the law on petitions generates a request to abuse the law on the Parliamentarian enquiry.
  3. Kelder states that there is hardly discussion about the consequences of the euro. There is discussion about millions of euros but not about the trillions of euros involved in the future of the euro, say ESM and so on. His initiative is intended to generate more attention for a public discussion of these issues. However, Kelder ignores that there is a discussion between experts. Public discussion of course is okay in a democracy, but soon issues become complex, and then the lay people and experts have a difficult time in communicating with each other. My suggestion has been the creation of an Economic Supreme Court (ESC), to help bridge the gap. The ESC focuses on government policy, is open to science and the public, and thus would provide a platform to discuss issues on content without political meddling. Kelder ignores this idea too. Thus he is aware that there is a problem in modern democracy with complex issues, but his solution is from 1800 to have a “public debate”. Thus he ignores that there is already discussion (see e.g. my papers and book “Common Sense: Boycott Holland” (CSBH, 2012), and he, as he writes me, actually doesn’t have time for following this discussion, so that he is a bit like the ostrich who wants Parliament to make the monster go away.

Recently, Kelder stated that he wants to quit the euro (Telegraaf, July 2). It is unclear whether he means that Holland must create the guilder again, or whether he e.g. wants a break-up into Northern and Southern coins (and France belonging where ?). Thus Parliament still has something to study for him.

I feel uncomfortable about this Telegraaf interview, since Kelder uses strong language that make him sound annoyed and angry, while he generally tends to present a polite and easy-going image. In the interview, Kelder grows aware himself about this contrast, is amazed about his own bitterness, and clarifies that he isn’t himself when speaking like this. Kelder states these views:

  • He rejects the Southern influence on the euro because of the differences in management cultures (Calvinism versus Catholicism), and sees leaving the euro as the only way to handle such differences,
  • he calls the EU a “religion”,
  • and calls Jean-Claude Juncker a “power junkie” (Dutch “machtswellusteling”, Google Translate “power voluptuary”) who has not been elected democratically (though there have been EU Parliamentarian elections),
  • and warns for a Nexit (NL leaving the EU) when Dutch policy makers do not come to their senses. Kelder would not be in favour of Nexit. He focuses on the eurozone. In this, Kelder seems to ignore the errors in democracy in the Brexit referendum. That is, when there would be a Nexit, he would not fight it as a result of misleading processes (e.g. errors that are propounded by Baudet’s Forum voor Democratie), but would still regard it as proof that people reject current policy making,
  • he doesn’t want to come across as angry, because he states that he isn’t, though he uses language that suggests that he is.
Baudet and Wellens

This weblog entry is already too long. In a sequel I will look at Baudet and Wellens.

PM. Petition 3. Unemployment, CPB … and euro

I suppose that I can give the short conclusion that this petition is the one to sign (by Dutch citizens). See the About page of this weblog.

Listening to Roy Orbison – Pretty Women

Let me give a clear and unbiased assessment of the qualifications and work of “dr.” Michiel Doorman at “Freudenthal Institute” at Utrecht University.

Let me first present four neutral points and then follow Sherlock Holmes.

(1) Michiel Doorman defended his “thesis” in 2005: “Modelling motion: from trace graphs to instantaneous change” (online), written under the supervision of P.L. Lijnse and Koeno Gravemeijer.

(2) He might best be introduced by his cv on p243 of his “thesis”:

“Michiel Doorman was born on 1 october 1962 in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. He completed his secondary education in 1981 at the Minkema College in Woerden. In1988 the Utrecht University awarded him a masters in Mathematics for his thesis on the extension of a proposition in intuitionistic logic for automated theorem proving. He minored in Computer Science. From 1988 he has been working at the Freudenthal Institute. Until 1992 he was mainly devoted to software development. During the following years he has been involved in curriculum and teacher training projects, mainly concerning the role of information and communication technology in mathematics education. Since 1994, this work concentrated on upper secondary (pre-university) mathematics education in a research project on the integration of the graphing calculator, in a curriculum development project (Profi), and in a project that aimed at guiding the Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics departments in schools to cooperate. In 1998 he started his PhD research study.” [my emphasis]

(3) There is also his Utrecht University webpage, that states:

“Interests are context-based mathematics education, modeling as a lever for learning mathematics, inquiry based learning and coherency between mathematics and science learning.”

(4) Michiel Doorman was also invited as one of the keynote speakers at the 3rd International Conference on Research, Implementation and Education of Mathematics and Science (ICRIEMS) at Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in May 2016.

  • This is Doorman’s presentation pptx (on “inquiry based learning”) and
  • this is the proceeding pdf: “What Can Mathematics Education Contribute To Preparing Students For Our Future Society?“.
Michiel Doorman at ICRIEMS 2016 (fourth from left) (Sources: ICRIEMS website)

Michiel Doorman fourth from left (Source: ICRIEMS website 2016)

Why does Doorman in 2016 claim success for RME while it failed ?

Around 2005 there was much discussion in Holland – a real math war – about arithmetic in elementary schools. The academy of sciences (KNAW) set up a committee to look into this.

Recall the graphical display of the math war between RME and TME, and the solution approach of NME. These abbreviations are:

  • RME = realistic mathematics education
  • TME = traditional mathematics education
  • NME = neoclassical mathematics education

(i) This KNAW-committee concluded in 2009 (see the English summary on page 10 in the report) that pupil test scores for RME and TME did not really differ. Paraphrased: one cannot claim a special result for RME. Observe that many test questions contained contexts.

“Growing concern about Dutch children’s mathematical proficiency has led in recent years to a public debate about the way mathematics is taught in the Netherlands. There are two opposing camps: those who advocate teaching mathematics in the “traditional” manner, and those who support “realistic” mathematics education. The debate has had a polarizing effect and appears to have little basis in scholarly research.” [This neglects my third position with NME.]

“The public debate exaggerates the differences between the traditional and realistic approaches to mathematics teaching. It also focuses erroneously on a supposed difference in the effect of the two instructional approaches whereas in fact, no convincing difference has been shown to exist.” (KNAW 2009)

(ii) Doorman in Yogyakarta 2016 is unrepentingly for RME. He refers to key authors on RME, and takes a question of TIMMS 2003 with an international score of 38% and a Dutch score of 74% and claims, misleadingly:

“This cannot fully [be] attributed to the implementation of  RME, but it strengths [sic] the feeling that this approach contributes to the quality of mathematics education.” [my emphasis]

(iii) Subsequently, I criticised the KNAW report on these counts, and neither KNAW nor Michiel Doorman have responded to this criticism:

  • Before the report was published by alerting the committee chairman to Elegance with Substance (2009, 2015), that however is not included in the references.
  • In 2014 explicitly for the collective breach of research integrity, for either neglecting or maltreating my books Elegance with Substance (2009, 2015) and Conquest of the Plane (2011) and Dutch Een kind wil aardige en geen gemene getallen (2012) notably on issues of arithmetic (the present subject): the pronunciation of numbers and notation of mixed numbers.
  • In 2015 for neglecting the issue that TME prepares for algebra while RME doesn’t. The KNAW report uses the outcome of test questions and not the intermediate steps. Pupils who can only use RME will be very handicapped for algebra in secondary education.

See my 2016 letter and its supplement to the president of KNAW and director of CPB about the failure of the KNAW report and the neglect of criticism.

A repeat exercise that isn’t quite superfluous

I have explained, to boring repetition, that the Freudenthal Head in the Clouds Realistic Mathematics Institute (FHCRMI) should not be at a university. Please observe that first there was criticism on the failure of “realistic mathematics education” (RME) and only later it was discovered that Hans Freudenthal had actually abused the work by Pierre van Hiele. There also is a sound scientific explanation why it is a failure: namely a confusion of processes of learning with applied mathematics.

Thus it holds:

There is little advantage in repeating this analysis,
neither for each and every individual working at FHCRMI.

For example, stating that Michiel Doorman works at FHCRMI should be sufficient. That he is at FHCRMI does not imply that he can indeed be at university and that his “thesis” and “PhD title” are proper.

However, the following points cause that it isn’t quite superfluous to look into Doorman’s qualifications and work.

  • Michiel Doorman is member of the board of NVvW, the Dutch association of mathematics teachers. See my recent letter with a Red Card for this board. Thus it helps for the next annual meeting of NVvW in November 2016 to be specific.
  • Also, there is my letter of April 15 2016 to NRO, the Dutch organisation for the distribution of funds for research in mathematics education. I advise them to stop subsidising FHCRMI. It so happens that Michiel Doorman did a project ODB08008 for them in 2009-2012 on the “digital mathematics environment” and “efficient exercising mathematics” (DWO). It will be helpful for NRO to see that, for example, Doorman is an ideologue and no scientific researcher. This is related to the following.
  • There is the new impulse for “21st century skills” or in Holland “Onderwijs2032“. Part of the attention is for soft skills, part of the attention is for computer programming, part is elsewhere. ICT brings us to the work of Doorman too. There has already been a major disaster with the neglect of computer algebra since 1990. For example DWO at FHCRMI tends to present many Java applets that lack the flexibility of computer algebra. Don’t think that these issues are easy to resolve, but I do hold that the decisions have been driven by ideology and that the results are a disaster and a great waste of funds: penny wise pound foolish. See for example these two reports by the Inspectorate for Education: In 2002, mathematical topologist Hans Freudenthal is called a “pedagogue” while he had no education or training on this, and they assume that FHCRMI knows about ICT while the report doesn’t mention computer algebra but applets on “wisweb”. In 2006, the “waarderingskader” (inspection standards) doesn’t seem to realise that computer algebra can used in all subjects that use mathematics.

Above, I mentioned four neutral points. Following Sherlock “Google” Holmes I already debunked the event in Yogyakarta. Let us look at the other three points. Beware of confusion.

Ad 1. Doorman’s “thesis” of 2005

Michiel Doorman defended his “thesis” in 2005: “Modelling motion: from trace graphs to instantaneous change” (online), written under the supervision of P.L. Lijnse and Koeno Gravemeijer.

  1. In the “thesis”, Doorman basically refers to Paul Drijvers at FHCRMI for computer algebra, but Drijvers is no light on this either. For the subject of the thesis (“Furthermore, it has been examined what role computer tools could play in learning mathematics and physics.”) it would have made much sense to look deeper into computer algebra.
  2. Also check my analysis that Koeno Gravemeijer is no scientist but an ideologue for “realistic mathematics education” (RME) who misrepresents issues on “21st century skills” (in Holland “Onderwijs2032“), and who doesn’t see the revolution by computer algebra. (Dutch readers can look here too.)
  3. On p58-59 Doorman critically adopts RME, and remember that this was in 2005, while RME was under discussion, see (a) the discussion in 2006 between Robbert Dijkgraaf (who has no qualification for math ed at this level) en Kees Hoogland (a RME ideologue, see below), which report was written by RME supporter Martinus van Hoorn, and (b) while Jan van de Craats (who has no qualification for math ed at this level) was protesting about RME, and published “Waarom Daan en Sanne niet kunnen rekenen” in 2007. See my criticism w.r.t. Jan van de Craats (fighting his math war on the side of TME and neglecting NME since 2008).
  4. Doorman refers to Freudenthal for “guided reinvention”, but this is a wrong reference (he may only have coined the phrase but not the concept), and Doorman’s thesis does not refer to the true inventor of the concept (guide through levels of insight) Pierre van Hiele at all.
  5. I will not look at this “thesis” in detail because there is really no reason to so so now.
Ad 2. Curriculum vitae

Doorman’s cv shows that he got a mathematics degree and continued at Freudenthal Head in the Clouds Realistic Mathematics Institute (FHCRMI), thus without a teaching degree in mathematics and without proper training in research of mathematics education.

  • The KNAW report of 2009 showed that FHCRMI doesn’t do research on arithmetic education, and one should not suppose that this is different for other areas.
  • Thus Michiel Doorman is neither a teacher of mathematics nor a researcher in the education of mathematics.
  • We find no qualification for teaching and research, but immersion into ideology, and while he is involved in programming and the role of ICT for (mathematics) education, there are only perfunctory statements on computer algebra (for all subjects that use mathematics).
Ad 3. Webpage

Observe that “context-based mathematics education” is a rephrasing of “realistic mathematics education” (RME). Also “inquiry based learning” is basically RME, with contexts as the starting point for the “inquiry” (constrained by learning goals).

Someone really interested in didactics and RME would also have been interested in my analysis that shows that RME is a confusion and an ideology.

Observe also that the sciences are easy victims of RME. The sciences do not care much about mathematics education, and when RME people flock in to assist in the learning of the sciences, and when student learning time for mathematics is actually spent on the sciences, then professors of physics or biology might hardly object. For RME the sciences are useful window dressing, since those provide both contexts and an aura of respect and acceptance, and an argument that “students are learning something” (even if it isn’t mathematics). There is a curious historical link-up of mathematics with the beta sciences while there are also the humanities (alpha) and social sciences (gamma), see here. But is it really curious, and isn’t there a method, that the human and social scientists who know the techniques and who also do research by observation are kept out from this association between “mathematics education” and “science education” ?

Possible confusions that are triggered immediately

Stating the above might immediately trigger some confusions.

  • As member of the NVvW board Doorman might argue “not to look into the criticism on FHCRMI because of an interest there”. Instead, he should rather take the initiative and make sure that this criticism was answered in decent manner rather than burked. If his interest is so large that he cannot speak freely on science then he should rather not be in the board.
  • Doorman in a 2015 text in Euclides, the journal of NVvW, referred to (intellectually stealing) Freudenthal and not to (victim) Van Hiele. When asked to correct, he didn’t reply to this very question (see page 8) but talked around it, see my deconstruction of his “reply”. Potentially Doorman just didn’t have the relevant knowledge about didactics, for histhesis” refers to RME but not to Van Hiele. If Doorman had looked into this criticism of mine, he could have been a bridge of understanding for the other members of the NVvW board and readers of Euclides, but he wasn’t.
    PM 1. I don’t understand either why these people didn’t see that he dodged the question.
    PM 2. Doorman in Indonesia sheets 44-49 on RME repeats the reference on anti-didactic inversion to (intellectually abusing) Freudenthal at the cost of (victim) Van Hiele.  Thus I asked a correction, he dodged the question, and proceeds as if there would be no problem (and likely not informing the audience about the criticism).
  • Thus Doorman is neither teacher nor researcher: so what is he doing in the board of NVvW ? From qualifications, actually their lack, and work, actually the lack of answers, it is a small step towards wondering about motivation. A good hypothesis is: he is spreading the gospel of RME and blocking criticism. If Doorman wants to become professor at FHCRMI he must show that he is a true sectarian of RME. He is polishing up his cv and can now claim that he has been involved in the community of teachers, even when it was dodging questions. This is a hypothesis only, and one might also offer other explanations like blindness.
  • I wonder who paid for this trip to Yogyakarta. It is also known that Freudenthal Head in the Clouds Realistic Mathematics Institute (FHCRMI) still is busy in establishing footholds over the world even though RME has failed. See also, who apparently neglect the KNAW report or my criticism.
  • Yes, there is also NRO-project supervisor Frits Beukers, but he is professor of mathematics also without qualification for mathematics education research. Beukers presently is chairman of the Platform Wiskunde Nederland (PWN)-education committee, but would represent the universities since he has no qualification for primary or secondary education or the trade colleges. In that committee we also see Kees Hoogland, who abused the biography by John Allen Paulos for RME, and who has not corrected yet and who refuses to give an English translation of the key section.
Disclaimer: Can I be unbiased ?

I stated that I would give an unbiased assessment. Can I really do so ? Undoubtedly the reader will make up one’s own mind, but my perception is that I have been fair and unbiased.

Doorman’s “thesis” of 2005 is closely related to the education on the derivative. There was ample scope for a meeting of minds. When Doorman sticks with RME and Java applets, instead of NME and computer algebra, it is all of his own choosing. The differences in positions can be mentioned:

  • Check my proposal since 2007 for an algebraic approach to the derivative, see e.g. Conquest of the Plane (2011).
  • COTP was also programmed in Mathematica – a system for doing mathematics on the computer (a.k.a. “digital environment”) .
  • Also, I am a user of computer algebra since 1993, while Doorman tends to use other programs that don’t have the flexibility of computer algebra.
  • Doorman was editor of TD-Beta when I submitted a short note in 2012 on my invention of the algebraic approach to the derivative. This was maltreated. See here anonymised  and see here with full names (it is a scientific discourse and no private exchange).

At the NVvW annual convention of 2015 when Doorman was elected to the board, I had my doubts but opted still mildly optimistically for the benefit of the doubt. I had no experience with this TD-Beta journal and perhaps everything was an unfortunate misunderstanding. It doesn’t happen so very often that someone can propose a new approach to the education on the derivative. The performance of last eight months however gives evidence of the mindset of an ideologue.

Conclusion: Doors of perception

Any link to Doorman’s name is coincidental, and it is also a coincidence that the Dutch family name “Doorman” indeed is related to the English “doorman” (at least according to the Meertens institute).

The phrase “doors of perception” comes to mind when looking at Doorman’s presentation sheet “Aim of Primas” that states:

“A question not asked is a door not opened!”

  1. This implies that an opened door is a result of a question. (This need not be an open door.)
  2. This doesn’t imply that asking a question will open a door. (The question might e.g. be ignored.)

The message of this present weblog is, amongst others, that there are some crucial questions that Michiel Doorman refuses to look into and apparently doesn’t want to answer. He is employed at the Freudenthal Head in the Clouds Realistic Mathematics Institute, that should not be at a university. Apparently Doorman did not inform his hosts in Indonesia about the existing critique either.

I am quite neutral on the questions whether or not there is a Brexit and / or the UK breaks up. It is all up to the people in the UK what they wish to do.

My view is only that what we see isn’t democracy but political abuse. The data of the June 23 outcome are generally known, and summarised in the Appendix below. These data still leave unclear what UK voters really think. It is utterly false when politicians and their lawyers claim that the outcome represents the “views by the voters”.

This weblog entry on the Brexit referendum outcome has two aspects:

  • First there is an advice for young UK on safeguarding their future.
  • Secondly, there is the scientific outrage that voting theory has been neglected. Let me suggest to my fellow scientists to protest en masse to the political world that this Brexit referendum was & is political abuse, with deliberate neglect of scientific results on voting theory. Civilisation should not let such developments be determined by such political savagery.

Let us start by observing that the Brexit referendum question neglected the possible break-up of the UK. This isn’t hindsight but people warned for this early on, e.g. William Hague in December 23 2015 just when the referendum question was published. One might argue that people thus were warned, and if they still voted for Leave then they must have included the risk of a break-up. Thus we would live in the best-possible-world (Candide), and it is up to Scotland and Northern Ireland to decide now. However, science has shown that one cannot really interprete referenda in such manner. For example, foreign secretary of Sweden Margot Wallstrom warned on June 12 that the UK Leave might mean the end of the EU. Perhaps she intended to stimulate the turnout of Remain, but, if she was heard at all, she likely encouraged the turnout of Leave who wanted to destroy the EU too, and helped them forget about the break-up of the UK. Thus, it is too rosy to hold that people in the ballot box are fully informed and can deal well with misleading referendum questions.

For young UK (age < 50 years)

An advice for young UK who face Brexit is to study the basic theory of elections and then organise a new decision, done properly.

Four texts to study are:

  • the former weblog text on Brexit
  • my online book Voting Theory for Democracy
  • a paper that compares district representation (DR) as in the UK with proportional representation (PR) as in Holland. A), with a summary that appeared in Mathematics Teaching 222 in the context of the 2011 UK referendum on “Alternative Vote”.
  • a warning (in Dutch) to be careful with the mathematics of voting schemes.

Let us consider, for the sake of argumentation, a potential new referendum that might combine the options of Remain / Leave with UK / EU, so that voters can express better whether or not they want to leave the EU at the possible cost of a break-up of the UK. The votes on remaining or leaving the UK must be aggregated for the four areas separately, with perhaps the creation of England as a political entity too.

2016-06-29-Brexit-true-optionsWould this scheme work ? The scheme doesn’t quite deal with conditionals, like (England’s ?) “Leave the EU provided that others don’t leave the UK” or (Scotland’s ?) “Remain in the UK provided that the UK remains in the EU”. (1) Opinion polls “help” people to get an idea what others will vote, but such polls can be quite misleading. (2) A scheme is to let voters rank their preferences. For example, a youngster might rank A > C > B > D and an elderly person might rank B > D > A > C, but this ranking doesn’t quite resolve conditionals, e.g. that might cause strategic voting. And what about other issues, like on immigration ?

This hypothetical case fits the general scientific finding that referenda are predominantly no good way for collective decision making. It is remarkable that this isn’t general knowledge or even part of common sense.

Best seems that people vote for parties and that parties have negotiations in Parliament. However, this also depends upon whether Parliament has been chosen by DR or PR.

  • The political tensions in the UK rose likely because the UK has DR instead of PR. The political system in the UK excludes minorities and reduces political competition, whence non-represented minorities grow ever more extreme.
  • The Dutch system with PR includes minorities and enhances competition for votes. PR forces parties to compromise, and bearing responsibility reduces extremes.
  • Referenda are normally PR and used to correct errors of DR, but that doesn’t make referenda true corrections.

Therefor, the best solution would be to have a decision by Parliament selected in PR manner, or, paradoxically, given that this Brexit referendum has been allowed, have a nullifying referendum. One would put four issues on ballot:

  • “The Brexit referendum question was too simple, and the outcome is annulled.”
  • “Adopt for Parliament a system of Proportional Representation (PR) like in Holland, with a Prime Minister and cabinet appointed by Parliament.”
  • “Adopt a constitutional Economic Supreme Court (ESC).” The ESC provides necessary checks on the quality of information for policy making. For this, see DRGTPE, and this memo in the RES Newsletter.
  • “If there is an ESC, then also have annual elections.” When the ESC is in place, then one can have annual elections to enhance voting power on preferences, with less risk of political chaos.

These latter two conditions for a modern democracy are still lacking in Holland. Dutch readers are referred to “Democratie & Staathuishoudkunde” (2012).

The political abuse

The New York Times reminded us on June 21 2016 that David Cameron used the referendum to resolve a political fight in his own party.

“In 2013, besieged by the increasingly assertive anti-European Union wing of his own Conservative Party, Mr. Cameron made a promise intended to keep a short-term peace among the Tories before the 2015 general election: If re-elected, he would hold an in-or-out referendum on continued British membership in the bloc. But what seemed then like a relatively low-risk ploy to deal with a short-term political problem has metastasized into an issue that could badly damage Britain’s economy, influence the country’s direction for generations — and determine Mr. Cameron’s political fate.”

This use is not necessarily an abuse, since, for example, 52% of the vote legitimise the idea, and these were not party members only. Instead, the abuse is the neglect of voting theory: the misrepresentation of a multidimensional issue by a binary choice. It is like asking “Do you still beat your wife ?” and allowing only a Yes or No, so that when the answer is No then the subsequent conclusion is: “Ah, so you admit that you did beat her before !”

Surprisingly, both David Cameron and Nigel Farage got away with the misrepresentation in the question in this plebiscite. (1) There was not enough discussion on this irresponsible simplification of the issues. At least the possibility of the break-up should have been included, see the early warning by William Hague. (2) Whatever the question up for vote, a referendum can be hijacked for another populist cause, as happened in this case with immigration. Angry voters send a vote-of-no-confidence to the government whatever the consequences.

For scientists

The case for scientific outrage is obvious. It is remarkable that we haven’t heard much from UK scientists on this. Stephen Hawking warned about Brexit but didn’t say that the referendum question is silly and dangerous.

There is this open letter of June 14 by a long list of scientists who protest:

“A referendum result is democratically legitimate only if voters can make an informed decision. Yet the level of misinformation in the current campaign is so great that democratic legitimacy is called into question.”

Curiously, however, this letter doesn’t make the point that the referendum neglects voting theory, since the very question is misleading w.r.t. the complexity of the issue under decision. Would these scientists be willing to admit this ex post ?

There is a critical article in the New Scientist of June 1 for example, but the issue of misrepresentation isn’t quite mentioned. The reporters adopt the frame that the question is sound and the voters are irrational, while the truth is rather that the referendum question is a misrepresentation and that voters are upset (albeit unconsciously) by being boxed into a corner, and by being given responsibility but no means of control (the recipe for stress).

“THE EU referendum could be the most irrational yet. Uncertainty over consequences, and contradictory economic and political information, mean that voters will be swung even more than usual by feelings and biases that have nothing to do with the issues at stake.” (Michael Bond, Jacob AronHal Hodson)

It is well-accepted by students of voting theory that referenda can by abused by politicians for their own agenda. Thus the scientific outrage should be felt by many more scientists.

Insert: The Queen: “Why did nobody notice it?”- in 2008 at the financial crisis

After the financial crisis in 2008, the UK Queen is reported to have asked: “Why did nobody notice it?” (Telegraph 2008, Guardian 2012). There is the plain answer that some people warned but were not listened to, and this is the ancient issue of Cassandra or perhaps The Boy Who Cried “Wolf”. See e.g. this discussion. The same question can be asked now w.r.t. the referendum: why did not more people warn that the referendum and / or its question wasn’t sound.

Potentially, organising a new referendum would better show how the people in the UK think about a break-up. There is one catch: it may be impossible to restore the status quo ex ante. Now that Scotland has discovered that it might be dragged along by England into undesirable waters, perhaps Scotland still wishes a new referendum on independence, even when the June 23 referendum is annulled and when a new referendum confirms that the UK would remain in the EU. This is something that someone in the Policy Simulation Room should have seen coming.

Many observers already mentioned that if there would be general elections before a government dares to invoke article 50, then these elections would turn into a repeat referendum too. In that case DR doesn’t quite square with the PR of a referendum, and thus one would rather first have PR and perhaps secondly also split parties in Remain and Leave subparties.

Insert: How the UK Electoral Commission advised on the question

A kind reader informed me that the UK Electoral Commission advised on the referendum question. Looking into this is another mer à boire.

  • The Commission has the task to check that even a misleading question is “intelligible”.
  • There is a useful discussion about the difference between “remain” and “be”, and whether yes / no creates a bias for people who hate to say no. My impression is that the Electoral Commission deserves a compliment w.r.t. the clarity about the question, so that everyone can see that it was a misleading question.
  • However, the Commission entirely overlooks the possibility of including a “None Of The Above” (NOTA), while this inclusion might have tickled people into wondering about the misleading question itself.
  • There is no mention that the UK might break up after a Leave outcome. Is it really so that no-one in the UK was aware of this and that the Electoral Commission could neglect this ?
  • There were general warnings, like in the section on “Contextual understanding of the European Union” points 3.23-3.27 on page 16:

“3.25 Whilst overall awareness of the UK’s membership of the EU was found to be relatively high, many reported that more contextual information would be required regarding the voting outcomes. Particular queries included what a vote to remain a member would mean in terms of membership status: continuation of current terms of membership or something different? A small number of participants thought that a majority vote to stay would result in the UK becoming a member of the Eurozone.  
3.26 There were similar queries about what a vote to leave would mean in terms of membership status: completely leaving the EU or some other form of membership?
3.27 Those who were undecided about how to vote were particularly likely to report a lack of contextual information enabling them to make an informed vote. They reported a lack of clarity regarding what each voting outcome would mean in practice. This is considered in more detail later in this chapter.”

I didn’t find the required details in this chapter. My advice to the Electoral Commission is to refuse to participate in the creation of misleading questions. It is okay to clarify questions, but one should also be aware of voting theory that referenda can be silly and dangerous. At the minimum discuss the inclusion of NOTA.  The reason of the referendum is to recover the views of the electorate, and what happens with the view is not only “context” but key information for developing these views.

Insert: Partial agreement with Martin Wolf in the FT

Martin Wolf stated in his “What a Prime Minister Boris Johnson should do next” (FT June 28 2016), that I only saw after basically completing this text:

“Might it be possible to abort the entire process? Legally, yes. As Brexiters rightly say, the UK is a parliamentary, not a plebiscitary, democracy. The step that must be taken, if the UK is to leave the EU, is for it to issue a declaration under Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, to trigger the process. In law, a referendum is solely advisory. Only parliament can do this, because only it makes valid law.”

It is a subtle point that many will not have been aware of. The Dutch advisory referendum on the Ukraine had always been communicated as “advisory referendum”, and in the future such clarity would be advisable.

Now, both David Cameron and Jean-Claude Juncker assume that the UK will automatically invoke article 50, and the debate is only about delay (supposedly to the advantage of the UK) or speed (for the EU wishing to have it over with). There are rising tensions. Juncker’s attitude would have been different when Cameron had treated the referendum outcome only as an advice. Today, David Cameron is not present at the informal meeting of the HOSGs, and EU Council website has a statement by the 28 – 1 = 27:

“In their joint statement following the meeting, the 27 leaders announced: “We, the Heads of State or Government of 27 Member States, as well as the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, deeply regret the outcome of the referendum in the UK but we respect the will expressed by a majority of the British people. Until the UK leaves the EU, EU law continues to apply to and within the UK, both when it comes to rights and obligations.””

Nigel Farage was jeered and booed at with Juncker’s unkind question “Why are you here ?” when he presented himself in the EU Parliament. It is unkind not to allow Farage his moment of victory and for exporting his message to a wider EU area, and to imply that he was only there for the attendance fee. One should respect that it remains a political view whether one wants more integration or a return to a trade area. With this unkind and non-sportive treatment, one may better understand how Europe got into wars so often in the past. But also Farage did not treat the referendum outcome as an advice only.

Still, I agree with Wolf that the UK still has the option to backtrack. The real question is what would be the convincing argument. The argument must be made convincingly, otherwise tensions in the EU will rise, and businesses will reduce the risk of trading with the UK. For me, the convincing reason lies in the observation that the referendum question is an abuse and neglect of voting theory.  For me, it doesn’t matter whether the UK leaves or breaks up, if only the voters have been offered the true options.

Wolf is more worried about the economy, and subsequently considers some options, including re-negotiating on immigration, and starting with:

“After selection of a new leader by the Conservative party, and perhaps even a general election, Prime Minister Johnson might, to paraphrase Emperor Hirohito’s remarks at the end of the second world war, declare that, given the “unexpected” economic damage and the risk of a break up of the UK, the situation “had developed not necessarily to the UK’s advantage”. He might forget the whole thing or, alternatively, call another referendum, merely to make sure the people remained as determined.”

The argument on the Brexit is rather thin, given that the Brexit had been presented as an issue of sovereignty and the monster of the superstate. It belongs to the possibilities that Johnson doesn’t really care much whether the UK is in or out of the EU, and that the Brexit campaign was only a last resort to get Cameron and Osborne out of the way. It is also possible that Johnson might become Prime Minister now and is appalled by the chaos that he has created, and thus becomes willing to change his position. However, it is less likely that the EU will agree with re-negotiating on immigration to try prevent the UK from invoking article 50. Politics might be blackmail but the UK cannot claim a special position w.r.t. the problems in Syria or Africa.

Thus I regard this line of reasoning as not so convincing. Little stops us from combining the principles on voting with the practice of economics. However, why would we complicate a clear issue of scientific clarity on principles of voting with a messy assessment on economics ? For the experts, as Wolf indicates, the economic assessment is not messy, but we lack an Economic Supreme Court, and thus non-economists are lost in the game of guessing who the experts really are, and experience shows that this process actually is quite messy.

David Cameron might have selected his time window till October for mere party politics, but it would provide time indeed to let these arguments percolate. I would not wait for Boris Johnson but rather look to young UK and the world of science.

Insert: Gideon Rachman’s non-belief in a Brexit

Gideon Rachman doesn’t quite believe the Brexit, given some precedents (FT June 27 2016), that I also only saw after basically completing this text.

“In 1992 the Danes voted to reject the Maastricht treaty. The Irish voted to reject both the Nice treaty in 2001 and the Lisbon treaty in 2008. And what happened in each case? The EU rolled ever onwards. The Danes and the Irish were granted some concessions by their EU partners. They staged a second referendum. And the second time around they voted to accept the treaty.”

“Boris Johnson (…) hinted at his real thinking back in February, when he said: “There is only one way to get the change we need — and that is to vote to go; because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No.”

“And what kind of new concession should be offered? That is easy. What Mr Johnson would need to win a second referendum is an emergency brake on free movement of people, allowing the UK to limit the number of EU nationals moving to Britain if it has surged beyond a certain level.”

With the EU refugee crisis (an emergency for Syria and a structural problem for Africa), it is not likely that the UK will get such exception, for the other 27 members will not be able to explain this to their constituencies. There doesn’t have to be a concession from the EU. It suffices for the UK to come to terms with voting theory, apologise to the EU for the confusion, and redo the decision making process to find out what it really wants.

A cocktail of uncertainties and possible sources for confusion

The Brexit referendum has the advantage of illuminating various uncertainties and possible sources for confusion.

  • My correspondent in The Hague argues that the Brexit outcome injects new energy into society, namely the idea of “getting a life”, and being freed from the suffocating bias by the collective hive. I am reminded of 1914, when people were energised to go to war. Sebastian Haffner‘s book of 1964 still needs an English translation: Die sieben Todsünden des deutschen Reiches im Ersten Weltkrieg.
  • One might argue that Scotland voted to remain in the UK in 2014, and thus now has to suffer the cost. The EU might welcome Scotland but might still have greater fear for break-ups like with Catalunya. Overall, my impression is that the nation states of Vienna 1815 still have an important role to play in the immediate future. Eventually a perspective of a “Europe of the Regions” (Heineken map) makes more sense. One could make a plan for the next 25 years for gradual change with both integration and distribution.
  • The 2011 UK referendum on “Alternative Vote” was crooked because the proposed system was too complex, likely by wrong advice from mathematicians. There is the curious Dutch D66, liberal democrats who neglect science and prefer DR.
  • The demographic breakdown shows that younger people turned out less and were more likely to vote for Remain, while the elderly turned out more and for Leave. Issues are: (1) When people don’t turn out, we don’t know their vote. (2) Are non-voters really indifferent to the outcome or merely confused ? (3) Don’t young people know that elections are important for their future ? (4) Was it relevant that younger people are used to a digital world while the referendum is old technology that the elderly are used to ? (5) When they have regrets, should they sit on the blisters ? (6) Will they be able to understand that this referendum was an outrage and neglect of science, and would they be able to explain this to others ?
  • An interesting point is that this Brexit outcome challenges the “one man one vote” principle. In Public Health we oppose “lives saved” to “life years saved”. It matters whether one saves a baby or a 95-year old. See my essay on the Value of Life. In economics we have intergenerational accounting. Potentially one might argue that young people are more affected by a decision like a Brexit than the elderly. The elderly might argue that they know better what is good for their grandchildren. A 95-year old might also argue that the world has a lot of babies but few 95-year olds, and that he or she represents a huge investment in human capital.
  • Remarkably, the City of London had a great interest in remaining in the EU, but was caught in the problem that others might (obviously) think that they put their interests before those of the UK. Somehow Finance lost from the Tabloids. A mediating role might have been played by Education, but Education apparently didn’t explain about the political abuse.
Dutch EU Presidency disaster, with Dutch PM Mark Rutte

The Brexit outcome means that the Dutch EU Presidency 2016 is a disaster, under the leadership of Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Indeed, even Dutch PR has its problems. The Dutch general elections 2012 might have allowed a coalition under the leadership of Diederik Samsom, with parties PvdA & SP & CDA & D66 & CU & GL & PvdD = 38 + 15 + 13 + 12 + 5 + 4 + 2 = 89 seats in a house with 150 seats, but Samsom preferred a quick deal with Rutte (VVD, 41 seats). Samsom forgot that VVD and PvdA had made rather conflicting campaign promises, so that a coalition was strange, and both are much lower in the polls now (VVD 24, down from 41, PvdA 8, down from 38). In 2017 there are Dutch elections. VVD and PvdA had been hoping that the Dutch economy would be doing well by then, but the Brexit makes this less likely again. However, my advice is that all (decent) parties are represented in the executive of the government too, since being in government helps realism. The selection of the Prime Minister can be done by the Borda Fixed Point method.

Potentially the EU regarded the UK referendum as an internal affair of the sovereign UK. European heads of state or government (HOSG) have been advising the UK voters, but always at some “respectful distance”, and not in town hall meetings as Barack Obama toured the USA. It is part of European folklore to have a European project but while maintaining the outward rituals of sovereignty. This emphasizes the distance rather than the togetherness like in the European Song Festival. The Dutch Presidency should have been more alert on this. People in the UK might argue that there are ample people from other EU nations in the UK, so that there are ample opportunities for discussion, and that the purpose of the referendum is to let the British make up their minds themselves. But why not have town hall meetings with EU HOSGs at various locations in Nigel Farage’s backyard ?

Another comment (lost the reference) was that it was Margaret Thatcher who pushed for the neoliberal agenda, as opposed to the Continent, with the Christian or Social Democratic agendas. This caused the austerity programs and the financial crisis of 2007+ and the call for more austerity. Thus the UK exported the policies to Brussels, about which the Brexiteers complain that those came from Brussels. To this, we might add that Tony Blair proceeded along Thatcher’s path, and assisted in the false pretentions for the invasion into Iraq that eventually caused ISIL and the Syrian refugees to Europe. How blind can you be about your own crookedness ? Also, Mark Rutte has hero worship for Thatcher, and thus was the last person to explain this boomerang to the UK. See what Rutte neglects: my paper on the Cause and Cure of the Crisis.

(PM. Perhaps, however, Rutte has other objectives. Now that the House of Hanover leaves the EU, perhaps the House of Orange has better cards to get adopted as the Imperial House for the EU empire, later to be united with Russia. My correspondent in Moscow informs me that president Putin is already looking at pictures of young Dutch princess Amalia. As Putin intends to rule for a thousand years, the age difference doesn’t bother him. But the Moscow correspondent  also states: “Then he swears violently, for he realises that he must also find a diplomatic solution for the MH17 problem.”)

A problem in science

There is a related issue that must be mentioned usefully. For the above, science has a positive role. However, we should not paint a picture that is too rosy. Science can also contribute to political confusion. A problem in science is that here is a common and fundamental misunderstanding w.r.t. the Impossibility Theorem of 1951 by Kenneth Arrow, a mathematician who got the Nobel Prize in 1972 for this theorem and other work. The impossibility theorem might seem complex but is rather simple, for: assume some properties and give a counterexample. The impossibility arises by a simple mechanism, namely by assuming that collective decisions can be built up from voting on pairs of issues. Obviously the world is more complex and one cannot neglect the context. However, mathematicians are very fond of the misconceptions that Arrow created, and political scientists are very fond of acting like they understand the mathematics. Thus there is a serious problem of malpractice in science itself. Cases of this malpractice in Holland are here 1, here 2, here 3. A problematic situation exists in the USA w.r.t. Donald Saari, last year the chairman of the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS), the union of all mathematical associations. See also the relation of CBMS to the US Common Core in mathematics education.

In 1990, one of my papers at the Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB) showed that Arrow confused voting and deciding. The mathematics of his theorem is okay but his interpretation is wrong. One can use pairwise voting results but one should not regard these as decisions. The final decision can only be made when all pairwise results are in and related to each other. A cycle in voting scores translates into collective indifference. When there is a tie, then there must be tie-breaking rules. Thus, democracy is not impossible, but a bit more complex than Arrow suggested. Unfortunately, this paper of mine of 1990 got hit by censorship of science, as also my other papers, including the new approach to resolving unemployment and stagflation. The paper on Arrow’s impossibility theorem has been transformed (partially) into the book Voting Theory for Democracy, but the results on unemployment and stagflation are still importantly much under censorship that should be lifted.


Young UK and scientists all over the world are advised to protest against the political abuse of this Brexit referendum, and it would also help when they start boycotting Holland till the censorship of science by the directorate of the Dutch CPB is resolved.

Appendix. The Brexit referendum outcome

The following data can be found at YouGov (exit poll on ca. 5000 people) and there is a nice graphic at wikipedia (a portal and no source). John Burn-Murdoch at the FT presents a graph that turnout rises with age, from a low 65% for age 30 to a high 80% at age 50 (not copied here).

wikipedia brexit

YouGov Brexit