[Peleg]

I'm not sure if this one fits (so if it get's moved I understand) here but I thought it would be nice to write something about the conceptual foundation that can help us understand all of the facets of peak oil as they seem to encompass many disciplines: geology, economics, sociology, psychology, physics, politics...

I am what would properly be called a synchrotist (not morally but scientifically.) It used to be that the term 'scientist' applied to this very broad foundational understanding of human sciences, but that has been lost with specialization. Peak oil being so multifaceted is a great place to recapture some of those notions. I would welcome anyone's input here but I will start at the beginning, the root node of understanding all science as I see it.

Basic principles

1) Every discipline is organized around concepts which may be strictly theoretical, logical, and/or data based. The Scientific Method is one commonly accepted method for discovering true things within a context.

2) Every concept is explained with definitions more or less precisely depending on the field of study

3) The concepts and defintions form a sort of dictionary that professionals use to talk about their discipline

4) Various disciplines can be closely related in content and vocabulary

5) Many disciplines can be understood more easily using foundational disciplines

Foundational disciplines

1) Logic

2) Rhetoric

3) Mathematics

4) Philosophy (to include spirituality and religion)


The core principles of analysis and synthesis

(This applies so much more broadly than we typically notice now because as I said specialization robs us of the broad power of the seven liberal arts. We all want walking dictionaries of specialization but advanced problem solving requires the ability to work in a multi-disciplinary environment.)

1) Existence of Concepts(Objects)

2) Dependence/Independence - Objects can act in connected systems or alone

2) Magnitude (Properties and Methods) - Objects can have descriptive properties and inner workings that affect their own state or the outside world.

3) Relative Position - Objects that are different have some set of properties not in common...

4) Relative Motion - Objects can move relative to one another through time or any other measure.

5) Interpretation - The meaning of an observation or system is bounded

6) Models and Reality are not the same thing

7) Observations link Theory to a broader Reality (data, data quality,...)


Now, turning to policy analysis it is the economists who have given us what typically becomes the currency of analysis. You guessed it, the Almighty Dollar. For a very long time economists turned everything into a dollar value. That way you could right equations that existed in dollarland. After the analysis you can turn that dollar value back into whatever suits your fancy. Another somewhat universal quantity is what we now call risk. Risk is essentially the probability of an event multiplied by it's expected magnitude. Statistics come in handy in estimating both quantities. Risk almost always serves cost and benefit however. We just simply can't get away from using dollars as fickle as that is. I mean the value of a 1990 dollar is different than the value of a 1995 dollar (greater actually.)

A few more seemingly disjoint principles

- Frame of Reference

We pick a standard for the dollar say 1990 dollars because we need a fixed point of reference to make comparisons.

This leads to the most important truths to a person who thinks very much at all.

By analysis we mean breaking something down into it parts and understand the weights and measures of them.

By synthesis we mean understanding how those parts relate to each other and possibly through that relationship create properties for the whole that no single individual object possessed, some have called these 'emmergent properties.' I think that is fine but it does have a bad taste because of all the different types of entropy that the emmergent thinkers have given us in the last few decades.

An example of an emmergent property is the knowledge of the market. No single individual knows the future as well on average as the daily bets of all market participants.

That seems pretty broad but here is one result.

An issue in sociology, one in economics, and one in geology can be analyzed using data and statistical methods. These estimated quantities can be converted into comparable units and the synthetic system analyzed for risk under various hypotheses about the relationships, the time rates of change, the unknowns, the error distributions, all of these things.

The point I want to make is that even if you do not get as technical as some might, we are all doing this exact same thing everyday.

[Note: Irrationality may actually be a strategy similar to randomly searching for data to estimate a mean, a Monte Carlo Method]

So when we talk about volatility risks to the oil market for instance and we list,

1) hurricanes

2) Iran

3) Nigeria

4) Hugo Chavez

Each of these can be looked at as possible risks that happen randomly or are hard to predict. Though the timing of occurence might be hard to predict, the size of impact may not be. There might be many ways to characterize the risk and to synthesize the overall policy proposals.

All good policy analysts I have ever talked to or read are well aware of all of these different truths and work very hard to give the best advice they can. Sometimes we see partisian bias in proposals, but that is not the pure science of policy analysis being given it's due.

Just to move down into an analysis branch here. How do we assess the risk posed by Hugo Chavez to the oil market?

Here are some clear starting points

1) How much gas and oil does the US get from Venezuela?

2) If there were a shortfall what other emergency sources might we have and how long would they last?

3) What is the likelihood of Chavez creating a shortfall? What are the hot buttons to that event?

3: Indepth - [an analysis of the life history of Hugo Chavez including his political ideologies, his current political position in the country, his psychology, his assets, key players around him, his understanding of the world (what does he know and not know?), economic, political, and social levers that might affect or guide him against his will such as the likelihood of a coup if sanctions were levelled (which can affect behavior not only in retrospect but in anticipation.)]

I hope that what you see when you read this is the dendritic nature of analysis and synthesis. Still in all it really boils down to those basic concepts I mentioned earlier,

Objects interacting with one another through time. Time, space, magnitude, inclinations, probabilities, unknowables.

Everyone laughed at Rumsfeldt when he said 'There are things we know, and then there are things we don't know. Of what we don't know there are things we know we don't know, and things we don't know we don't know.'

The thing is he is absolutely right. Knowing that we do not have the best data on reserves is troubling. Not knowing that we do not have the best data on reserves is potentially a scale of magnitude worse. We might draw conclusions based on error values calculated from the data never knowing the sample mean is off by 5% from the population mean. Not because the central limit theorem does not work, but because we are involved in a complex game of strategy (and a few other less noble things.)

I hope this does some good for some folks. This is not to be high minded, but really to encourage you to do the analysis and the due diligence. Those who do not need to hear this over again, you know who you are and this is not intended for you.

This is my opinion. We begin moving from darkness to light when we become aware that there will always be things we do not know that we do not know. How do we deal with that?


[Suggestion for meditation and study]

Knowledge, understanding, wisdom, faith, hope, love

Place each of these terms on the point of a hexagram and study how and why each is related and what they mean. Look at each by itself to try to define it, there is history, cultural breadth here, contextual use, alot of things. Then look at each pair of terms to see how they are related. Are there larger groupings that are meaningful, are there universals, are there context sensitive truths? Which disciplines do they belong to, why are they important, can they be commoditized, what is their substance and power in the lives of humanity?

Eventually when we broaden our interests enough and look for common themes we find all human knowledge and experience is beautifully interwoven, connected by some concept or another, opposing or enhancing, so that it is possible to behold fire in a diamond. And I am confident that there are still many things I do not know that I do not know. With each glance more of what is is revealed, and the journey of knowledge never ends.

Regards,

Peleg


What is beautiful is beautiful beyond description - Anonymous

"There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." John 1:9

[aldente]

2) Every concept is explained with definitions more or less precisely depending on the field of study

Correct, especially when it comes to Sex and Drugs and Rock N'Roll

There are only two fields that define it all:

Death and Time (Sex is the intermediary that acts as the conducting glue, Drugs are relatives of sex and music is the Holy Spirit to speak in your terms (especially Led Zeppelin)