So don't mistake explanations that are easy to vary for explanations that are slightly incorrectly formed but have good explanatory bases.
For example, the only criticism of IBDD that I've heard that's worth taking seriously is the "consistency" issue. i.e. that it's possible to enact two contradictory bits of legislation. If we found a solution to this that required altering the construction of IBDD that does not make it easy to vary because the way that we varied the theory was specific, addressed the criticism directly, and remained consistent with the underlying explanations.
However, in the Persephone myth (https://youtu.be/QPdOQapyTXE?t=16m30s) the way we vary the theory fundamentally changes it. While it still accounts for the seasons, the before-and-after bear little resemblance.
Maybe, but I'm not aware of a better way currently. In the choice between accuracy and making something simplistic, I'll take accuracy. The other thing is that an hour long lecture is not a sales pitch; it's a deep dive and should deal with things as accurately as possible.
We could use examples from modern politics but that might violate our policy neutral position, which is why we haven't till now. The other thing is that it's difficult to dissect one issue without appearing partisan. The other thing is criticism of position v policy. Criticising policy is much harder - and currently no legislation I'm aware of includes an explanatory framework, just regulations/instructions/laws.
It's not cherry picked, just clear. It's easy to come up with myraid other examples from physics.
Be careful, that's not an accurate statement (or at least it's not what I said in the lecture)
The statement all evils are due to a lack of knowledge in no way implies that evil itself exists due to a lack of knowledge; one is a statement about (ostensibly) human suffering, the other is a sweeping moral conjecture on the state of the universe.
Think of it this way: "the instantiation of a particular evil (e.g. death due to preventable disease) is due to a lack of knowledge (possibly surrounding the distribution of vaccines, mass manufacture, cost, etc)".
"Evil" != "an evil"
They don't have to be a cornerstone of selling Flux/IBDD, but they certainly do when it comes to explaining it. You can explain general relativity without maths only up to a very early point; fallibilism, economics, and the selectorate theory play similar roles when it comes to IBDD.
The other thing is that it's our differentiator - no other democratic movement has philosophical foundations anywhere near as solid as Flux.
IBDD isn't simple, and it never will be. We need a lot of complex ideas to solve the problem because it's a bloody difficult problem. RD fails. DD fails. LD fails. Tyranny fails. Olicharcy fails. Autocracy fails. Monarchy fails. IBDD succeeds. We're literally overturning thousands of years of misconceptions on how to best govern ourselves; it's not going to be a simple solution.
Yeah, absolutely. The lecture wasn't meant to be for everyone, it was meant to be for those people who have an insatiable quest to know why it works.