4 ms·
I am curious if Diamond has ever done an apology for his incorrect Easter Island theory in Collapse. As I understand it, at the time it was a reasonable conclu
by hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
I am curious if Diamond has ever done an apology for his incorrect Easter Island theory in Collapse.
As I understand it, at the time it was a reasonable conclusion (though even back then it was still highly controversial and lots of scientists disagreed), but in the decades since, it's become obvious this "ecoside" theory is wrong, and this latest study puts the nail in the coffin.
So has Diamond ever said "There is new evidence, and I was wrong"? Or is he doing that weird thing that humans often do where they double down on a now obviously incorrect theory because admitting fault is somehow too painful?
- throw4847285 2y agoWell doing that would require Jared Diamond to be a serious scholar and not a pop historian who cares mostly about selling books.
- TeaBrain 2y agoI don't think there's an issue with being motivated by a desire to sell books. Selling poorly supported narrative-driven historical fiction as a work of pop history is potentially an issue though.
- throw4847285 2y agoThe problem is one often follows the other. If you're economically incentivized not to rethink your premises despite mounting evidence that they are wrong, it's hard to pivot.
- jcranmer 2y agoWell, Diamond is still a fervent believer in Clovis-First, despite the entire anthropological community having disavowed that theory about two decades ago.
- mzs 2y agoHe's responded to criticism rather poorly: https://cambridgeblog.org/2010/03/puttin-the-objective-in-objectivity/ https://cambridgeblog.org/2010/03/puttin-the-objective-in-ob...
- slothtrop 2y agoNot unlike Graeber.
- vanderZwan 2y agoWhat does he have to do with the current discussion?
- circlefavshape 2y agoHe said some reasonable stuff which seems less likely in the light of new evidence. What is there to apologise for?
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoApologize is perhaps the wrong word, thank you. But has he come out and said "this new evidence means my older theories are wrong?" The other comment about his review of Questioning Collapse makes me think not, but even that was from nearly 15 years ago. I think it's important that Diamond acknowledge the new reality, as he is probably the person most responsible for spreading an idea (one that has a lot of implications for the present day real world) that turned out to be wrong.
- jcranmer 2y agoHis book was based on theories that were considered shoddy when he wrote it, is extremely selective in its evidence at best, and he reacts quite poorly to people who criticize his ideas on environmental determinism.