To get the ball rolling, I would first like to closely examine the ad hominem attack I was accused of making last week. Here is the critical part of my original post on theoildrum regarding Greer's offhanded blog response to David Korowicz's excruciatingly thorough Trade-Off: Financial System Supply-Chain Cross-Contagion: a study in global systemic collapse , which I would recommend everyone read now, if you have not done so already.
Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Leanan,...
...Greer's rebuttal of Korowicz's paper is intentionally dishonest, misleading, insulting, and completely inadequate (i.e. silly). If anyone on this site wants to take up and champion Greer's cause, or if Greer himself were to debate this on this site, I think it would be the best discussion The Oil Drum has ever had. Greer's position is so obviously the losing one. I guess it is always socially easier to agree to disagree than to have one side actually lose the argument.
...Greer's rebuttal of Korowicz's paper is intentionally dishonest, misleading, insulting, and completely inadequate (i.e. silly). If anyone on this site wants to take up and champion Greer's cause, or if Greer himself were to debate this on this site, I think it would be the best discussion The Oil Drum has ever had. Greer's position is so obviously the losing one. I guess it is always socially easier to agree to disagree than to have one side actually lose the argument.
This attack, as written, is technically an ad hominem attack; but it is a special exception to the usual rule, and is known as a valid ad hominem attack. From an article in Scientific American called "Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem" by Yvonne Raley.
"Although ad hominem arguments have long been considered errors in reasoning, a recent analysis suggests that this is not always the case. In his new book, Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric, University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments. Regarding the ad hominem, Walton contends that although such attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirectly related to the point being articulated....
...What types of ad hominems might then be justified? Walton argues that an ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person’s character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn. Consider, for example, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught on a wiretap arranging to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzer’s anticorruption platform, its unveiling would prevent Spitzer from governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character was relevant and fair. In an earlier scandal, in 1987, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart was seen at a motel with a prostitute. Because his behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model, a character attack based on this incident would have been spot-on."
So, with all that in mind, let me make something perfectly clear right here and now that I obviously would never be allowed to say on theoildrum.com:
John Michael Greer is a Charlatan!
Let me say that again. John Michael Greer is a modern day, snake oil selling charlatan. I just wish I could say it louder. I will now offer the following indictment in support of my position.
Why John Michael Greer is a Charlatan
1. John Michael Greer does not seem to want to discuss his actual theory very much.
See if you can find a very good explanation of catabolic collapse from the threads in question. Real scientists and academicians do not miss the chance to explain their ideas.2. John Michael Greer does not seem to much like questions or comments opposing his ideas, and in fact does not allow them on his own blog.
This is also inconsistent with the general attitude common to real researchers, scientists, and academicians (and that includes historians).Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
"Instead of sniping at JMG here on TOD, why don't you engage him on his blog?"
Tried that. See below. But it's his blog, and he controls the discussion, and is generally dismissive of those who may disagree with the story he's telling. I respect his perogative to do so, if not always his conclusions.
And:
Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Tried that. See below. But it's his blog, and he controls the discussion, and is generally dismissive of those who may disagree with the story he's telling. I respect his perogative to do so, if not always his conclusions.
And:
Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Ghung, I don't discourage challenges to my conclusions; you're free to challenge my conclusions anywhere else on the web you want.
Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
'anywhere else on the web' but where?
NAOM
Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
NAOM
Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Anywhere else but on the comments page of my blog, where he's already repeatedly stated his opinion on the subject.
3. John Michael Greer seems quite proud of his position with regard to not entertaining opposing ideas on his own blog.
He seems preoccupied with commerce and popularity, as opposed to ideas.Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Tribe, the reason I get that many comments -- or so I've been told by a number of those who make them -- is precisely because so many people are tired of the rehashing of conventional wisdom, the endless and pointless arguments, and the other less than amiable features of so many internet forums. If more people read and comment on my blog than the other blogs you have in mind, that's hardly an argument for scrapping the features that make my blog a little different, and embracing the habits of the blogs these same readers are choosing to avoid -- quite the opposite, don't you think?
And:
Ron,...
...I'd also point out that it's ironic, to use no stronger word, that this tempest in an oil drum should have blown up shortly after a lengthy discussion, on this same forum, of the fact that online attention to peak oil sites such as this one has been dropping since 2008. I haven't had that experience on The Archdruid Report, oddly enough; my page views per month have been climbing steadily during that same period. Could it be that this is because most online peak oil forums keep on rehashing the same tired debates in the same stereotyped terms, and my blog doesn't? It's an interesting question to which I don't have a firm answer -- but I do have my suspicions.
...I'd also point out that it's ironic, to use no stronger word, that this tempest in an oil drum should have blown up shortly after a lengthy discussion, on this same forum, of the fact that online attention to peak oil sites such as this one has been dropping since 2008. I haven't had that experience on The Archdruid Report, oddly enough; my page views per month have been climbing steadily during that same period. Could it be that this is because most online peak oil forums keep on rehashing the same tired debates in the same stereotyped terms, and my blog doesn't? It's an interesting question to which I don't have a firm answer -- but I do have my suspicions.
4. John Michael Greer is quite fond of accusing his detractors of not understanding his 'theory'.
This is a common defense often used by charlatans.
Some examples from the thread:
"The arguments I offered haven't been refuted, or even addressed, by Korowicz -- or, indeed, any of the studies just mentioned."
"Richard, thank you for the vote of confidence, and also for actually paying attention to what I've been saying! It's seemingly a rare habit."
"Loren, you've...mischaracterized my ideas to an extent that makes me wonder if you've ever actually read anything I've written...."
"(the tone)...of his [Rob Hopkins] response took me aback, and so did the number of misrepresentations that found their way into it; I have no objection to criticism – quite the contrary, an idea that can’t stand up to honest criticism isn’t worth having in the first place – but it might have been helpful if Hopkins had taken the time to be sure the ideas he was criticizing were ones I’ve actually proposed..."
5. John Michael Greer is not even taken seriously by the academic community he pretends to be a part of!
...I've been waiting since the original paper was first published for somebody to present a meaningful critique of the theory -- that is, a critique that showed that the critic had taken the time to understand the theory I propose, and was prepared to present reasoning or evidence to challenge it.
6. John Michael Greer speaks in analogies and metaphors.
The terminally ill patient metaphor comes to mind.
From an analysis by "Prestige" on James Randi Educational Foundation web site, whose founder is a long time debunker of frauds and a personal hero of mine. This took place on their discussion forum way back in 2007:
"The idea of catabolic collapse is simple enough, and it's best communicated through a metaphor.
...This use of metaphor, in place of actual research, of analogy in place of evidence, is a lie. A cheat. A fraud.
An analogy might be useful for introducing schoolchildren to novel concepts that are not "simple enough" in their own terms. And even then, the concepts they introduce have been thoroughly researched and proven, in their own terms, by people who are not schoolchildren.
We're not schoolchildren. To be lectured as if we were, with childish and simplistic analogies, is insulting enough. When that lecture is delivered by someone whose own efforts on the subject show no signs of having progressed beyond such childishness, it is downright laughable."
7. John Michael Greer seems to be revising his 'theory' on the fly.
It is hard to critique a moving target.
Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Richard,...
...Yes, I'm arguing for a stairstep or, as I'm thinking of it these days, a fractal collapse -- a long ragged process packed with crises on various scales and of varying severity, taking one to three centuries to complete the descent into the deindustrial dark ages.
8. John Michael Greer's 'theory' is not even a proper theory in the first place.
But that's OK since I'll bet that his biggest supporters on the oildrum have not even bothered to read it anyway.
Once again from "Prestige" of the James Randi Educational Foundation discussion forum:
"In the final paragraph of his paper:
1. He hasn't done any of the hard work necessary to validate his proposal.
Such assessments of past and present societies, in order to achieve a high degree of analytic or predictive value, require careful quantitative analysis of a sort this paper has not attempted.
(page 12, paragraph 2, sentence 1)
2. In fact, it may be impossible to validate his proposal.
Since each element in the conceptual model presented here stands for a diverse and constantly changing set of variables, such analysis offers significant challenges, and in many historical examples it may be impossible to go beyond proxy measurements of uncertain value for crucial variables.
(page 12, paragraph 2, sentence 2)
3. He's willing to admit supposition in place of actual evidence or serious research efforts
However, general patterns corresponding to the catabolic collapse model may be easier to extract from incomplete data.
(page 12, paragraph 2, sentence 3)
4. In closing, he asserts that such supposition should be biased in favor of his proposal.
Any society that displays broad increases in most measures of capital production coupled with signs of serious depletion of key resources, in particular, may be considered a potential candidate for catabolic collapse.
(page 12, paragraph 2, sentence 4)"
And further:
"...Also, the research isn't very detailed, and the detail is most notably absent from the parts of the examples that are supposed to support his claims. He even admits as much: "... careful quantitative analysis of a sort this paper has not attempted".
...After admitting that actual evidence may be difficult or impossible to obtain, he says, "general patterns corresponding to the catabolic collapse model may be easier to extract from incomplete data". He's suggesting that anything that looks like his model can be supposed to validate his model.
...So don't you find bias in favor of an untested, unsupported, unresearched model a little problematic?"
___________________________
This breakdown doesn't begin to critique the so called Theory of Catabolic Collapse from a standpoint of the actual scientific evidence available or with reference to actual scientific theories that stand in stark opposition. I will begin to outline those objections in the next post.
In any event, I invite any and all comments, questions, objections, or whatever to this or any other blog entry I submit, and I will attempt to answer each and every one directly. Take your best shot. I gladly welcome a free and open discussion of ideas on my blog, unlike some people I know.
Until next time,
-----FUTILITIST
PS---Perhaps the con man has, wisely, already left town. From Greer's latest blog entry:
"It has been three years now since I took a break from these weekly essays, and for a number of reasons, now’s a good time not to take that any further. The fictional scenario that was going to be the last post in this series of three has unexpectedly grown into an extended narrative five posts long, one that needs to be filled out by a good deal of further research; I also have a contract, finally, for the Green Wizardry book project, and a major writing project on the other side of my career, both of which could use some concentrated attention just now.
This will therefore be the last Archdruid Report post until the beginning of October. I’ll be responding to comments on this post for the next week or so, but after that, you’re on your own for the month of September. Put the time you’d spend reading these essays into digging in your gardens, building solar ovens, learning to brew beer, or in some other way developing skills that will help you weather the opening years of the deindustrial age, and you’ll be ahead of the game. See you again on October 3!"
---John Michael Greer
I guess we will have to wait until then to see if John Michael Greer shows his white robed, long bearded, snake oil selling, charlatan face ever again!
Gosh, Loren, thanks alot :-/
ReplyDeleteWhile Greer and I have our differences of opinion, as noted in your post, I certainly respect his entitlement to his,, and his right to moderate his blog his way, and can absolutely think of many, perhaps more influential, people for you to cast your derision upon.
As for the Greer vs Korowicz speed-of-collapse debate, I've only acknowledged that Korowicz provides a compelling argument for the possibility of fast collapse, and have done so on Greer's blog. He asked me to drop it and I have. I, for one, am not going to waste energy debating the nuances of civilizational decline; too busy prepping for it. Greer remains an ally for positive change, and he understands that there is little to be gained from dwelling on a fast, catastrophic collapse and the response that forwarding such a 'prophecy' invokes. There's value in his approach, IMO, as there is value in Korowicz's extensive analysis. As I've repeated often, my response will be the same.
Suggest you focus less on Greer and focus more on you and your's path toward improved resilience, less reliance on complex systems, and building local social capital. Anger and fear are the mind killers...
GHung,
DeleteThanks for commenting. I have a great deal of respect for you. You leave some of the most insightful posts I read on TOD. You reason and think very clearly. And you write very well. Please don't take any personal offence at my actions, I meant none. You posted the first ever comment on my first ever blog. And I am honored.
I also have nothing personal against JMG. Or anyone, actually. My target in all of this is not really Greer at all. He did not originate the idea of a slow collapse. The idea originates in the subconscious minds of it's adherents. It is just an emotional response, a rationalization to minimize a terrible dilemma that they cannot face head on.
Greer is probably genuine in his belief in slow collapse. But when Greer dresses his ideas in scientific jargon and mumbo jumbo, I think he crosses the line. I learned about the catabolic reaction as applied in yeast in my freshman biology course in 1980. It is the classic example used for years to argue that our civilization is subject to collapse from resource depletion. (see Energy and Human Evolution www.jayhanson.us/page137.htm) The other example is the deer on St. Matthews Island. Greer seems to want to avoid the fate of the deer (rapid collapse) and would instead prefer the fate of the yeast (slower collapse). I swear I think Greer just pulled the word catabolic right from the yeast example and improperly analogized it to apply to humans and justify a slow collapse! The speed of a collapse is not necessarily determined by whether it is catabolic or not. In the example of yeast in a vat, catabolism does indeed slow the collapse, but a catabolic reaction can also accelerate a collapse. In humans an example would be scavenging from infrastructure. It might provide a benefit for some, but it could also cause further rapid collapse when the infrastructure suddenly fails. In any case, one of the main catabolic reaction humans will apply is called cannibalism, and it might slow down the collapse a bit, but it doesn't make me feel any better, it makes me feel worse. Analogies and metaphors are just not science.
Greer has draped himself with the aura of science and makes his living helping people justify their delusions. Pretty much fits the definition of a charlatan, even if he is not conscious of his actions. I am trying to do just the opposite. I want to confront these delusions head on, for the public good. I am taking a two pronged approach. One, knock out the foundation of the idea, Greer's so called 'theory'. Two, force people to see their own deflection mechanisms, by exposing these mechanisms to others outside of the usual group, thus shaming the deflectors (check out social theory). Kind of a one two punch. By the way, I'm pretty sure that if Greer had never invented 'catabolic' collapse, people would still believe in a slow collapse anyway. It is just a product of the optimism bias and wishful thinking.
And I'm not a big fan of censorship and frankly I think Leanan is very heavy handed and totally arbitrary. TOD teaches more about etiquette these days than energy. My approach was intentionally provocative, if not it would have failed. Greer would not have joined the fray. TOD creates a catch 22 situation in which a controversial idea (collapse) cannot even be discussed. And they purport to be the pre-eminent energy information website online, complete with 501c tax exempt status, chartered for the public good. Yet they largely suffer blindly from the same basic optimism bias and delusional state as the rest of the general public. I want to expose all that, too.
Please stop by again and comment. This is a great beginning to the open dialog I'd like to have on the topic of collapse. I really enjoy discussing any and all topics with open minded individuals whether we agree or disagree. It's all about learning for me and I hope it is for you, too.
Thanks again,
Loren
aka
Futilitist
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLucretius,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have inadvertantly removed your own comment. Luckily, though, blogspot emailed me the comment when you first posted it. So I have taken the liberty to replace it in it's entirety. Hope you don't mind. This was your comment:
Like most of us, what an ego you have and so freely exhibit, and without the slightest trace of irony, nor even much self-awareness it seems. You have some valid points to make (although certainly no discernible, over-arching point or philosophy worth mentioning), but you trip over your animus and, my guess is, with no sense of self-awareness at all. "It is just a product of the optimism bias and wishful thinking." And do tell us, you pessimistic (angry?) realist, what bias and inaccurate, perhaps overreaching thinking do you suffer from? Anything? Nothing?
You need to do some basic research into the ideas of complexes and psychological projection before you utter another word toward the erstwhile Mr. Greer, who has more than proven his bonafides against, I would venture to say, far better, more comprehensive thinkers than you. He's also quite graciously, and on numerous occasions, carefully explained his theories, provided much supporting information, incorporated changes and updates when warranted, and explained patiently the basis of his theory and beliefs. You, apparently, like many "doomers", just don't like the conclusions he draws, the primary one of these being that this, now, today, just as you see it, IS collapse.
And since you seem to have a bias toward the "fast collapse" scenario, are you even aware of why you might WANT this to be true? Or are you also unaware of the popular twin American myths, those of Endless Progress and its complimentary opposite, that of Apocalyptic Collapse?
If you don't mind (and even if you do) I'd like to answer your comments in my next blog post. I'm going to use it as an example of the bad reasoning skills you share in common with John Michael Greer. Thank you.
Delete---Futilitist
I will enjoy seeing the fruition of your journey no matter the outcome, even if you learn to just let go. I had sadly been prevented from posting on Greer's site. I think you are wrong, however, to describe that he thinks he is doing some kind of academic work. I think he thinks he is an archdruid who has a specific theory about how the world works and I think he views the world in circular time much like the druids in the forests of ole did. I think where he is wrong is on five points though:
ReplyDelete1. He lumps in peak oil/resource people with those of the religious or wacko kind when it comes to apocalypse. Should a reasoned person spotting a meteor heading for earth or global warming be put into the same category as those with "failed" prophecies? I find he is conspicuously silent on global warming, on scientifically recorded environmental collapse, and societal historical examples such as Pompeii, indigenous peoples meeting industrialized people, native Americans, and there are plenty of more examples . And the claim that those who believe in fast collapse are having some wish fulfillment fantasy is an ad hominem/straw man arguement.
2. I have never seen him state a specific timeline as to what apocalypse actually means. He is like one of those TV psychics who never gives detailed specifics so he can be right no matter the outcome or facts. "Collapse now and avoid the rush" but what rush if collapse takes 300 years? I will be dead and so will my next 10 or so generations. I would guess most reading his blog would be better off doing whatever to maintain status, especially since the peak oil movement is made up largely of upper middle class folks worried about losing their status.
3. His insistence on this time isn't different goes against the laws of physics. Entropy ensures that it always is different. We don't mistake today for yesterday because of the simple fact that we can't get back to the previous state. And who cares about US aircraft carriers being blown up? As Dennis Leary most apply states, "We've got the bomb okay!" Imagine a situation where someone of a certain nation state destroys an aircraft carrier and we don't then nuke them. I can't but I am sure there are previous civilizations with world destroying powers. ;-)
4. In some weird way I feel he is making the argument that I often hear from those outside the peak oil community: The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. My response is always, Do you think it is possible that we mine more stone today in one day than the entire stone age? The answer is that we have not left the stone age (or bronze/iron/industrial age), we built cumulatively upon it. We have always been adding cumulatively to the stage before. This is the first time in history we will leave an epoch because we ran out of the base resource, except maybe whale oil though we did find a better substitute. Running out of oil will be a massively destabilizing force. Just as running out of stone/copper/iron today would cause the same problems as running out of oil.
5. Odum talks about this a little in Environment, Power, and Society, that all systems pulse and the more energy a particular type of system uses the larger and faster the ensuing collapse. Great example is stars. Early stars in the universe were huge and exploded quickly (100s of MYs) leaving behind their remnants for future suns like ours. Our star has far less mass and will burn much more slowly (10 Bys+) than those early stars. Roman society was burning, for lack of a better word, fossil soils, which do not give as much energy and take longer to deplete. Current society is using a much greater amount of energy leading to a faster ramp up and then decline, but then again since we have no solid definitions of fast vs slow collapse we cannot say if our current one is fast or slow anyways.
ReplyDeleteAll that said, I do enjoy reading JMG and do so because he brings a different point of view that is enjoyable and often changes the way I think about the problem. I recommend that you take his posts, warts and all, for what they are which is entertainment. Like most forms of entertainment, he gets to control the content and yes he also gets to reap all the profits and publicity.
Great comments thefuturefarm. Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but I've been very busy the last couple of days.
DeleteI still believe that JMG fits the definition of a charlatan whether he believes his own shit or not. He and those who follow him (slow collapsers) are simply suffering from the same mass delusion.
It is hard to overlook JMG's warts. Thank you for listing some of them here. Personally, I cannot bring myself to read anything writen by JMG and take it seriously.
---Futilitist