1.Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence.
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
When consumer groups and a few journalists began suggesting in the summer of 2001 that "someone" was manipulating California energy supplies in order to drastically increase energy prices, they had little or no information about what actually was occurring inside the energy trading desks of Enron. They were really just operating in reaction to media reports of high prices, businesses having to fold, brown outs, etc. There was absolutely no evidence available of what was going on within the trading system.2.Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact.
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
The energy price crisis affected tens of millions of Californians, many of whom were expressing emotional public anguish. The story generated tremendous regional and national interest.3.Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions.
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
The experts including Dick Cheney said that this was a complex problem that resulted from years and years of bad energy policy that inhibited oil exploration and prevented the construction of power generating facilities -- not the result of bad people doing bad things inside Enron. In other words, the public was reducing a complex economic and institutional problem to alleged immoral manipulation by individual traders.4.Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
Experts said that consumer groups and investigative reporters were reducing complex phenomena to a powerful small group of consiprators. Experts said that markets directed prices, not individuals; and that consumers were inferring evil conspiracies from the impersonal nature of the market, because such conspiracy theorists believed such gigantic price fluctuations could not just happen "by themselves".5.Allots superhuman talents and/or resources to conspirators.
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, never to repent, to possess unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, etc.
Experts also said that conspiracy theorists were alleging that someone had the superhuman power to move vast energy markets, such as California's and the entire southwest's which it was said was of course impossible. Conspiracy theorists on the other hand argued that Enron's energy trading system was new, unique and powerful and concentrated immense, nearly superhuman power among a relatively few traders.6.Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning.
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
Because there was no evidence of what was going on inside Enron, disgruntled consumers could only rely on inductive evidence -- namely the fact of unprecedented increases in energy prices occurring at the same time as deregulation, and the new system of energy trading. Deductive reasoning would provide a very different answer, because in that context, deductive reasoning would begin with formal economic theory, in which perfect markets and perfect information are assumed, and therefore massive market manipulation is deduced to be impossible.7.Appeals to 'common sense'.
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological phenomena.
In the absence of a "smoking gun" disgruntled consumers, progressive politicians and muckraking journalists could only rely on common sense assumptions. Meanwhile the experts at the federal energy regulatory agencies and conservative journalists using the most academically rigorous methodologies said that such market rigging was theoretically impossible. .8.Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies
Formal and informal logical fallacies <1> are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
On the other hand, one world class economist -- Paul Krugman -- argued that standard economics did not apply, and that in fact, market maniuplation could be occurring. He was routinely accused of making methodological errors, or even being simply corrupt.9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', generally lacking peer review
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
Because the federal energy regulatory agencies under direction of the Bush administration refused to acknowledge market maniuplation, allegations of energy price rigging circulated solely outside the energy expert field -- among progressive politicians, consumer groups, and muckraking journalists.10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
Energy price rigging conspiracty theorists were routinely told that what they were alleging was simply impossible under the current elementary postulates of economic science.11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
Energy regulators and conservative economists and business journalists, having found that the conspiracy theory of Enron price rigging was impossible simply ignored the story.12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence.
To the extent that experts addressed the alleged price manipulation at all, the conspiracy theorists doggedly persisted in proving their case, modifying it as evidence trickled out of Enron.Now: What really happened: Enron traders caught on tape:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/eveningnews/main620626.shtmlFour years after California's disastrous experiment with energy deregulation, Enron energy traders can be heard – on audiotapes obtained by CBS News – gloating and praising each other as they helped bring on, and cash-in on, the Western power crisis.
"He just f---s California," says one Enron employee. "He steals money from California to the tune of about a million."
"Will you rephrase that?" asks a second employee.
"OK, he, um, he arbitrages the California market to the tune of a million bucks or two a day," replies the first.
<snip>
"They're f------g taking all the money back from you guys?" complains an Enron employee on the tapes. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"
"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"
"Yeah, now she wants her f------g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a------ for f------g $250 a megawatt hour."
<Snip -- Traders discussed the role of politics and the prospect of a new Bush administration>
"Do you know when you started over-scheduling load and making buckets of money on that?
<Snip>
"It'd be great. I'd love to see Ken Lay Secretary of Energy," says one Enron worker.
<Snip>
"When this election comes Bush will f------g whack this s--t, man. He won't play this price-cap b------t."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
