From a nature artist's blog posting, entitled "Jackson's Monkeywrench":
Reading his paper has caused me to reassess my own view of the evidence. I bought the hype, as I think most of us have. The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology called the video conclusive, and that was good enough for me. I never even watched the clip to be honest, but now I feel I must. Whether that was an Ivorybill or a Pileated caught by Luneau's lens, Jackson's paper serves to remind us of a number of important lessons, about the scientific method, about the commodification of conservation, and most of all, about the way we learn about the world.Updated WorldTwitch Ivory-bill page:
Any con man knows how easy it is to trick a person into believing what they want to believe most...
The longer the search goes on without confirmation, the more skeptical I become...Now, however, Jerome Jackson has pointed out in his article in the January 2006 Auk that the devices were placed near roads and campgrounds and not necessarily in the "deep woods". It's conceivable that the recordings are of Campephilus double raps broadcast from a tape recorder either by someone trying to locate birds or someone trying to fool the searchers...While I continue to hope that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers will be located, there still is no solid evidence that the Ivorybill did not become extinct about 50 to 60 years ago...The inability of a large team of searchers to find one in a patch of marginal habitat strongly suggests that this is simply another case of misidentification of the common Pileated Woodpecker, or as twitchers would say, stringing.Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial (subscription may be required):
Was news of ivory bill's survival greatly exaggerated?
...Last spring, news of credible sightings prompted the sort of publicity that might attend the reemergence of a mastodon. Far less attention was paid the skeptics who thought announcing this resurrection on the strength of a mere seven sightings, some under challenge and none supported by hard evidence, was a bit of a stretch. Or, in the words of ivory-bill expert Jerome Jackson, an exercise in "faith-based ornithology."...But as time goes by, this woodpecker reminds us more and more of how often that other Elvis was said to have turned up alive.
Posts
29 comments:
Well apparently the groupthink mantle might even apply to Bobby Harrison who had 5 sightings.
But no photos. So with no photos
you obviously have... short glimpses. And with short glimpses you have... the opportunity for groupthink to intrude on human judgement. If anything is alive, it making noises and double-rapping
and kent-kent'ing by this time in the season. They will be settling in on a nesting territory very soon
if they exist. It would be hard to
miss hearing them if you are within a 1/2 mile in any direction.
The idea of an unmated senescent
IBWO that is wandering widely and wildly as the last of his kind... is a romantic notion. If he's old he probably wouldn't be flying around so much!
I've never held a video camera in my life, so I don't know how that
might improve or degrade what Harrison saw in his video when he looked through the viewfinder.
Paul Sutera - New Paltz, NY
Newspaper opinion coloumns about an opinion paper...
I am more than a little confused here. The Science paper, which presents original observations, data, and analyses, is bad science? And the Auk editorial, which present supposition, opinion, and allusions to data and analyses that are not actually presented, is good science? I think not.
It is no accident that Jackson's paper was presented as a "perspective" editorial, not a regular manuscript. It does not present any new data or any new analyses. The credibility of the conclusions of the original Science paper (or any scientific paper) are not affected by someone merely editorializing "I believe they are wrong." It is challenged by presenting new data or reexaminations of the previously published data that spell out clearly and explicitly why the earlier conclusions are mistaken, or at least not fully supported. Jackson did not do this. He merely expressed his beliefs. Most astonishingly, he states flat out his own conclusion that the Luneau video shows a normal pileated woodpecker, with virtually no justification for this. Of the three options that should be considerd for the identity of that bird (Ivory-billed woodpecker, abnormal pileated woodpecker, normal pileated woodpecker), he choses the only one of the three that apears to be clearly ruled out by the video evidence, yet provides no support for this amazing conclusion. Had he said "the poor quality and digital artifacts in the image make it impossible to determine the detailed distribution of the white evident on the upper surface of the bird's wings. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude definitively that this bird is an ivory-billed woodpecker," then he could have made a case. But instead he choses the most convoluted and unsupportable route of claiming that all the large amount of white evident on the bird is on the underwing, even at the bottom of a downstroke while the bird is near eye-level and rising relative to the observer. I think it is no accident that the analysis that demonstrates this has not been published; it requires too many convolutions and improbabilities.
Jackson's paper adds nothing to the hard data at issue here. The only thing is has accomplished is increasing the awareness and publicity in the popular media for his opinions. And popular opinions may be satisfying for some, but it is hardly the basis for good science or good policy.
The ship appears to be sinking on
the hopes for the survival of the IWBO...sad. Also sad that public trust in scientists will be eroded further.
Does the video rule out all competing explanations? Is the only possible explanation for that video that is was an Ivory-bill? No.
The article in Science provides evidence they may not be extinct, and presents it as fact. THAT is bad science, not the testing or analyses. Jackson's paper merely points out these flaws and raises doubts about their methods. No one except the true disbeliever skeptics would be questioning this if the video clearly showed an Ivory-bill.
-TPA
The credibility of the conclusions of the original Science paper (or any scientific paper) are not affected by someone merely editorializing "I believe they are wrong."
Jackson quoted Fitzpatrick as admitting one of their Ivory-Bills was likely a branch. Maybe that isn't "officially published," but combined with the lack of any repeatable evidence it certainly seems to deal Cornell's credibility a pretty serious body blow, doesn't it?
Also, Jackson's original rebuttal paper was accepted for publication, as was the Brazilian's paper, as will be future rebuttal papers. And perhaps, eventually, Cornell's retraction.
I keep hearing from supporters of the record about the 'data' in the paper. What data is this?
I'm looking at the paper now and all I can find in the paper is the poor shots from the video, with some interpretation of them. Other than that, there is mention of the apparent sightings of the bird and calls: "despite substantial survey efforts by skilled observers after the original sightings, we obtained minimal accoustic evidence of the ivory-billed woodpecker in the region."
You don't have to do some sort of complicated reanalysis of the data, or repeat experiments, to form your own opinion of whats gone wrong here.
Presumably, people are waiting to the end of the field season before submitting papers that challenge the data.
The data are the images and sigthing descriptions. The sighting descirptions are given briefly in the supporting online materials, and in more detail in the North American Birds paper. Data are not restricted to being just numbers. Of course they present their own personal conclusions as to what these data show; that is what you do when you write a scientific paper. Everyone knows that it can only represent the authors own conclusions not absolute fact revealed by god. Science doesn't deal with absolute fact revealed by god. That isn't stated anymore than it is stated that "this paper is written in English." It's obvious; a given that all readers of the scientific literature start with.
Reanalysis: You don't just say "your conlusion is wrong", you say why, specifically, their conclusion is wrong and yours if better. You don't just say that you think their data demostrates something else without saying WHY it demonstrates that something else. Tom has presented a reanalysis of the video stating why he concludes it shows a normal pileated. I disagree with his analysis and I have stated why. That is the way these debates should be carried out (though Tom's analysis has yet to be submitted for peer review and publication, as far as I know). That is what is missing in Jaskson's paper: a detailed exposition of his reasoning in his conclusions about the Luneau video. He addresses the sightings obliquely with general discussion of size impressions and flight style and subjectivity, but he does not address the themselves sightings individually and point out where he thinks these principles apply to call them each in to question.
These are the reason's that his paper is more accurately described as an opinion piece than an actual scientific rebuttal. Evidently the Auk editors agreed, as they published it in their opinions column.
That is what is missing in Jaskson's paper: a detailed exposition of his reasoning in his conclusions about the Luneau video.
What's missing in all the papers so far is a comparable video of a Pileated flying in the same manner as in the Luneau video (and the video of the Pileated referred to previously on this blog isn't comparable because that bird isn't gaining altitude and the angle of the bird's body to the camera is different). Everything else is supposition at this point. Everything.
But, reports of brief sightings, where not all the features are noted, are something I can't challenge. There opinion is its an Ivory-bill, mine is I don't what you saw, and don't see how sightings like this could possibly be conclusive.
My opinion of the video is its not an Ivory-bill. Why?, because I cant see the black line that runs through the middle of the underside of the wing. Can anyone tell me where its gone? (I know what your going to say, its something to do with the video, limited pixels etc., theres always an excuse).
Whilst the Auk editors may not agree with everything Jackson says(like any paper, opinion or not), they are not going to publish something they fundamentally disagree with.
When was the last time you heard words like "disservice to science" in an ornithological paper? I've read hundreds and I think this is comletely unprecedented.
they are not going to publish something they fundamentally disagree with
Most definitely untrue. It is their obligation to publish papers based on their merits as determined by reviewers, not on personal opinions. Journals frequently publish articles with diametrically opposed conclusions. It is not the editor's job to arbitrate "truth" or "correctness," just quality and relevence.
Why?, because I cant see the black line that runs through the middle of the underside of the wing. Can anyone tell me where its gone? (I know what your going to say, its something to do with the video, limited pixels etc., theres always an excuse).
In video, if a pixel is exposed to both white and black during a single exposure, it will show up as white in the final product (I don't know if this is limited to digital or if it works in analog, too). If you have a camera with manual focus, you can see this for yourself. As you film something, change the focus. As things becoming more and more blurred, you'll see the light colored areas will appear to "grow" while the dark stuff shrinks.
So when the camera is out of focus or if there is motion (both of which is happening in the Luneau video), dark areas next to light ones will become obscured. Despite the shortcomings of the models used in the Cornell reenactments, you can see how this happened with the Ivory-billed model.
And the exact same thing couldn't have happened for a Pileated? The white bled and covered the black? And you are now making conclusions taking camera tricks apart?
Sorry Bill, but we are going to have to agree to disagree. I know an editor of a scientific journal, and they wouldn't publish anything they or the reviewers considered to be of poor quality(or fundamentally disagreed with, whatever you want to call it). They might not be sure of the conclusions (hence opposed conclusions can be published), but thats a different thing to disagreeing with the paper.
In video, if a pixel is exposed to both white and black during a single exposure, it will show up as white in the final product
In the video, the bird's back appears all black to me in most frames. Apparently it does to Cornell, too, because they only point out white in, I believe, 3 frames. The above quote would seem to support the likelihood that the back was all black.
The video is of such poor quality that top experts can't agree on what it shows and apparently, you can see what you want to see. In the famous branch stub ivory-bill, you could "clearly" see an ivory-bill if you matched it to the model, but it simply wasn't there.
In the video, the bird's back appears all black to me in most frames. Apparently it does to Cornell, too, because they only point out white in, I believe, 3 frames. The above quote would seem to support the likelihood that the back was all black.
It seems the stripes on an Ivory-billeds back (or the stripes on a Pileateds neck) would be difficult to see on a bird flying away from the camera, so it wouldn't surprise me that they would be visible for only a few frames (or not at all).
The video is of such poor quality that top experts can't agree on what it shows and apparently, you can see what you want to see.
And that's why getting comparable video of a Pileated would help a lot. It would test the repeatability of the video. We could get away from all of these subjective arguments
Ok then, as far as I see it the lack of the diagnostic underwing black line means two possibilities:
1) Its not an Ivory-bill.
2) Its not possible to be sure what it is, due to the pixel problem.
Simple isn't it??
And that's why getting comparable video of a Pileated would help a lot. It would test the repeatability of the video. We could get away from all of these subjective arguments
I beg to differ. You can't squeeze blood out of a stone. To bring up the branch stub again (something no believer has yet addressed anywhere that I've seen) the Ivory-Bill model reenactment "proved" it was an Ivory-Bill, and had a Pileated model been put up, it would have "proven" the stub wasn't an Ivory-Bill, further reinforcing Cornell's test.
The video is garbage. Garbage in, garbage out.
it would have "proven" the stub wasn't an Ivory-Bill, further reinforcing Cornell's test.
should read "it would have "proven" the stub wasn't a Pileated Woodpecker, further reinforcing Cornell's test.
The branch stub is a separate issue from the flying bird. The one has no bearing on the other. You are muddying the waters here (as usual).
To bring up the branch stub again (something no believer has yet addressed anywhere that I've seen)
Well, I haven't addressed it because I think it's crap (I'm more of an agnostic, at least until I see better analysis of the video, and by "better", I mean analysis that in some way can demonstrate which side of the wing we are looking at, rather than), and I wouldn't say it's the centerpiece of the Cornell argument either.
The branch stub is a separate issue from the flying bird. The one has no bearing on the other. You are muddying the waters here (as usual).
Same video, same team, "sighting" reenacted and filmed out of focus using a model. Result: tree branch identified as an ivory-bill. In what way is that muddying the waters?
I've heard, scores of times "this is CORNELL, they can't be wrong." Clearly, they can be wrong. It's not up to the skeptics to prove every single sighting is bogus, it's up to Cornell to prove ONE of them is right.
I wouldn't say it's the centerpiece of the Cornell argument either.
I believe the quote you're referring to is that the Luneau video was the centerpiece of Cornell's paper. There's no doubt that it is. Without it they don't have much left. To quote Cornell:
The researchers decided to present Luneau's video as the centerpiece of their evidence that the ivory-bill still exists.
One more thought about addressing the branch stub versus the flying bird -- with the stub, we're arguing whether its even a bird. At least with the latter part of the video, we know we're actually dealing a bird, and we're just trying to figure out what species it is.
Ok then, as far as I see it the lack of the diagnostic underwing black line means two possibilities:
1) Its not an Ivory-bill.
2) Its not possible to be sure what it is, due to the pixel problem.
Simple isn't it??
I agree completely. Equally plausible arguments can be made for either bird from that video. It could be an Ivory-bill. But what seems more likely?
I wouldn't say it's the centerpiece of the Cornell argument either.
Can someone please outline what IS their centerpiece, if not the video?
I've heard, scores of times "this is CORNELL, they can't be wrong."
You may have heard that scores of times, but I haven't, nor are comments to that effect posted here frequently, if at all. It's a straw man argument: "Everyone says Cornell can't be wrong and that is why they believe them. But clearly they were wrong about this point. So they are probably wrong about everything and you shouldn't believe any of it." That wouldn't pass muster at a high school debating society. So how about dealing with the pieces of evidence individually?
I've heard, scores of times "this is CORNELL, they can't be wrong."
You may have heard that scores of times, but I haven't...
I wasn't speaking for you.
It's a straw man argument: "Everyone says Cornell can't be wrong and that is why they believe them. But clearly they were wrong about this point. So they are probably wrong about everything and you shouldn't believe any of it." That wouldn't pass muster at a high school debating society.
What wouldn't pass muster is misquoting someone.
When I say things that are true, it isn't a straw man argument:
After careful scientific consideration, Cornell makes claim A (the stub is an Ivory-Bill;) Cornell's claim A is false, therefore Cornell's credibility is weakened.
The branch stub proves that we can't blindly depend on Cornell's scientific methods and their interpretations of evidence. It doesn't mean that it's all wrong, but it does mean they need to produce some evidence that we can all study without depending on trust and faith. I had trust and faith in Cornell when this all began.
So how about dealing with the pieces of evidence individually? I HAVE dealt with most pieces individually, and to sum up, the sightings were too brief with too few noted fieldmarks seen, in an area where there were, coincidentally, aberrant Pileateds. The video is so lousy that numerous noted experts believe it shows a Pileated. No proof has been produced by anyone anywhere in 62 years. I will believe Ivory-Bills live when someone can produce evidence of the quality Tanner and friends produced repeatedly decades ago.
The branch stub proves that we can't blindly depend on Cornell's scientific methods and their interpretations of evidence.
The branch stub doesn't prove this; it is always the case that no decent scientist ever "blindly depends" on anyone's methods and interpretations. This is why methods, results, and discussion of these results are explicitly spelled out in scientific literature. Of course people were impressed by Cornell's repuation at the initial annoucement, but anyone who considered them (or anyone else) the infallible voice of the the supreme being was a fool then and remains a fool now. And over the summer as people had time to look at the evidence and reasoning, they then began to for a diversity of opinions about them. It is a fantasy that Cornell's reputation somehow caused the scientific community to accept unquestioningly everything they said. Hell, the rebuttals started coming in surprisingly fast, for academic scientists.
Let he who has never misinterpreted anything cast the first stone, eh?
The branch stub proves that we can't blindly depend on Cornell's scientific methods and their interpretations of evidence.
The branch stub doesn't prove this...
Of course it does. It is often necessary to prove things are true, even if that truth should be "self-evident." Clearly no human being or organization is infallible, yet people still often forget that.
It is a fantasy that Cornell's reputation somehow caused the scientific community to accept unquestioningly everything they said.
That's true, but that's a "Straw Man" because I never said or implied any such thing. I think the science community has been one of the most skeptical groups from the beginning, for good reason.
Still, many people, even though they shouldn't, blindly accept some things the Cornell Team says because Cornell is "credible," and that includes numerous poor sightings that Cornell itself wouldn't consider if they came from other sources.
I think the public, in general, still accepts Cornell's "rediscovery" based on reputation alone.
I think the public, in general, still accepts Cornell's "rediscovery" based on reputation alone
The public in general believes in space aliens, astrology, and does not believe in evolution. They rarely give a fig about scientific fact and information. Concerning ourselves with the opinions of the general public about a matter of science is an endeavor guaranteed to lead to failure and frustration.
Post a Comment