In the strongest published criticism yet of claims for the sighting of the ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas in 2004, an ornithologist who was not involved in the search has called claims for proof of the bird's existence "faith-based ornithology."
...
...in the spring of 2005, scientists announced that the bird had been found in the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge in Arkansas, prompting a surge of elation among birders and the general public, and later a steady current of questions and skepticism.
...
[Jerome Jackson] also criticizes publicity about the sighting by conservation organizations and the Interior Department as the "selling" of the ivory bill and says the bird's existence has not been confirmed.
...
John W. Fitzpatrick, head of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology in Ithaca, N.Y., coordinator of the search and announcer of the discovery of the ivory bill, said in an interview after he had read Dr. Jackson's article that he stood by the paper in Science.
Dr. Fitzpatrick said, "I have not yet seen any detailed scrutiny of the video that disproves our case."
He said that what "hurts the most" is Dr. Jackson's accusation that the Cornell Lab and other groups had been "selling" the ivory bill to promote conservation and that this effort had taken over the science. "We've tried very hard not to oversell what we know," Dr. Fitzpatrick said.
...
"I think the ball is in their court," Dr. Prum said. "I think they understand that to be universally accepted they're expected to find solid evidence and repeatable evidence of the bird this field season."
Monday
3 hours ago
Posts
5 comments:
I think oversold is a good word. I truly don't mind the money being spent, though if you are going to mount an IBWO search, spend the money more wisely. Truly there is so much farmland and so little forest down there... it would be nice if the government would respond to the idea that forest is worth preserving and that songbird migration "footholds"
are needed... with or without an IBWO confirmed sighting.
There's been enough logging of our forests over the 19th and 20th Century. If we saved more forests and Cornell turned out to be wrong
about IBWO in Arkansas it could also
look like "they cried wolf".
Better to make the case that long term, the forests benefit man more than the short term gains of loggers. I hear many forests are
being felled preemptively in the NW,
due to a beetle infestation.
So the price of lumber may drop anyway.
Paul Sutera, New Paltz, NY
One bit of the article Tom missed was this:
Dr. Fitzpatrick said the goal of the search, run by his lab, was to find a roost hole or evidence of a breeding pair. "We are still waiting for the prize," he said. "We have had a handful of moments when observers have seen what they are pretty sure is the bird. We don't have the next big clue, which is a roost hole."
From a distant perspective the outcome of this seems clear, they won't find any definitive proof of Ivory-billeds by the end of the field season.
If Ivory-billeds aren't found, then, like the above message, the most important thing is that the conservation efforts here are not harmed by this i.e. by emphasising the other species found here. This is what the latter paragraphs of Jackson's Auk paper refer to.
This statement, if acccurate...
Dr. Fitzpatrick said, "I have not yet seen any detailed scrutiny of the video that disproves our case."
Seems astonishing and unfortunate to me. I don't understand how a competetent, objective scientist can say this.
It appears that Dr. Fitzpatrick believes it is the skeptics' responsibility to prove his claim incorrect. Instead, is it not the proponent's responsibility to prove his claim with sound, repeatable evidence?
His approach to this whole thing is troubling to me. From the list of excuses in response to the Rob Burke question on the Nova Science Q & A, to the above statement, and much more, he seems to have abandoned science, reason, and objectivity in favor of emotion. If sound, repeatable evidence isn't presented soon, I don't know how Dr. Fitzpatrick, among others, avoids some serious consequences.
I think the only thing they'll find in that area is an Ivory Billed Bupkis!
I hope they don't prolong this.It's painful to watch.
I believe the bird is alive. It's just not there and they should scale back their search in the Cache River.
They're "saturation bombing" an area on the basis of poor recon work.
Sorry I must be watching too much war news from Iraq.
You have to wonder if the methodology of this might have been improved by the application of mathematical search theory. It has been implemented so successfully in location of things - everything from lost people, downed airplanes, missing boats, U-boats during WW II. Here's a related documented with a summary of the concepts http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/g-opr/nsarc/LandSearchMethodsReview.pdf
Post a Comment