> I don't think it is a fair argument either. Diamond uses comparative method
> to show a connection, and every comparative method is by definition
> selective. Researchers select cases based on their relationship to the
> hypothesis cf. Mills methods, which by implication leaves all other cases
> out. This method shows a connection but it doesn't show it's the only
> connection possible. Claiming that it is and then showing that it is not is
> unfair criticism, similar to creationist critique that evolution is only a
> hypothesis and not certainty. No science is certainty or for that matter
> explains everything, only theology and economics purport they do.
>
I second Dennis in asking whether you even read the links. This is not mere selectivity. It is ignoring facts, major facts, and contrary hypothesis in the examples chosen. To talk of Easter Island, and to ignore both rats and genocide is outrageous, and sloppy. To compare the fates of Haiti and Dominica and ignore the punishment Haiti suffered for abolishing slavery, maybe the very first case \of "sanctions" under capitalism, is even more outrageous, and more sloppy. If Diamond wishes to ascribe the fall of Easter Island and Haiti to internal decision making, does he not need at minimum to explain why they were more significant than external intervention? Even to the extent that bad decision making played a role, shouldn't he have dealt with the role that facing a powerful and relentless external enemy limited choices? Ignoring alternative major hypothesis for which there is strong evidence is inexcusable. Ignoring the role alternative causes may have played in causing the causes you focus on is pretty bad as well.