What may begin as honest error, however, has a way of evolving through almost imperceptible steps from self-delusion to fraud. The line between foolishness and fraud is thin.In an earlier post, I wrote about Ken Rosenberg's appearance on NPR's Science Friday show. When I listen to Rosenberg's treatment of the ARU kent call data, I can't help but think about Park's writing above.
As I wrote previously, Rosenberg played some ARU kent calls, failing to mention that several searchers reported hearing and seeing blue jays making sounds very much like this in this area. Afterwards, he said "...we, um, believe they may very likely be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker".
In my opinion, Rosenberg's failure to even mention the critical blue jay information seems like a deliberate attempt to deceive the NPR listeners.
Maybe I'm wrong. If you think it's OK to sell the kent calls to the public in this manner, please leave a comment or drop me an email.
Posts
8 comments:
I'm sorry, I'm afraid you've crossed way over the line out of respectability and honest debate. Now you're equating the Cornell team with pseudoscience. You fail to show respect for those that disgaree with you; why would you expect others to give you respect in return?
In my opinion, Park's writings describe your actions better than those of the Cornell team.
Bill Pulliam, who will not be participating in this pseudo debate on this forum any longer.
Radio interviews such as this one are commonly edited to achieve the required time. Without hearing the unedited interview you have to assume that Mr. Rosenberg failed to discuss the blue jay calls.
Be careful. If you make the same errors that you accuse the others of making, you will nullify your arguments.
1. This was no sound bite taken out of context. This was an hour-long show, and I find it hard to believe that NPR would edit out the critical five seconds it would have taken Rosenberg to say:
"Several searchers reported hearing and seeing blue jays making sounds very much like this in this area."
2. You can't deny that Rosenberg DID say "...we, um, believe they may very likely be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker". Given the Blue Jay information, how in the name of solid science can that statement possibly be justified?
Actually, I believe that was a "live" Science Friday show, produced and aired in one hour of real time (2pm-3pm EST) last Friday (note that they took questions from live callers).
Given that format, I think it's highly unlikely that any critical Blue Jay information was edited out...
You're right about the show being live. Even so, saying the calls "may very likely" be IBWO clearly implies uncertainty. To characterize the comment as "selling" or a "deliberate deception" seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think? After all, there's no way to prove that the recording isn't an IBWO, is there? So it comes down to a subjective judgement.
If it was a live call in, Tom, why didn't you call in and ask?
In fairness, don't you think that the Blue Jay information should have been included so that the NPR listeners could better judge for themselves the strength of the ARU evidence?
If Rosenberg wasn't "selling" here, please give me a plausible reason why he didn't mention the Blue Jay information.
anonymous said " After all, there's no way to prove that the recording isn't an IBWO, is there? "
Keep in mind, it is not the job of a skeptic here to "prove" the recording is not IBWO. It is the claimant's job to prove his claim. The claimants in this case have not provided adequate evidence for their claims, all of which can reasonably, and in my opinion, more likely, be accounted for with explanations other than IBWO. So far, there is no viable proof by the claimants that the recording is IBWO, or that IBWO exists at all.
In most cases, it's not possible to "prove" the negative anyway. If I claim there is a population of armadillos in Michigan, and show you a blurry photo that could be any number of things, could you prove there are no armadillos in Michigan? Would it be reasonable for me, having made the claim, to demand that you prove there are no armadillos? Similarly, has anyone proven there are no bigfoots?
Post a Comment