Other evidence included nine additional sightings and more than 100 recordings of what researchers believe may be ivory-bill sounds.The article's author is Ron Nargang, state director of the Nature Conservancy in Minnesota. The New York Times quotes were attributed to Richard Prum in an August 1, 2005 article.
Even those most skeptical now agree the ivory-bill exists in Arkansas. Three scientists had announced they were producing a paper refuting the evidence; after being provided a response prepared by Cornell and other scientists and after hearing some of the best recordings, two of them withdrew their paper.
One was quoted in the New York Times as saying, "The thrilling new sound recordings provide clear and convincing evidence that the ivory-billed woodpecker is not extinct."
He said he was "strongly convinced that there is at least a pair of ivory bills out there."
I think it's preposterous to claim Richard Prum as an Ivory-bill believer as of February 2006. He's been publicly skeptical for months, as shown here, here, and here.
Posts
9 comments:
This has been said many times before, but it seems to have still not sunk in:
To be considered on an even footing with the Cornell team's conclusions, rebuttals must be published in a peer-reviewed forum, not just Op-Ed columns, blogs, and newspaper articles. The rebuttals must also be extensive and thorough, addressing all the evidence: the entire video and all the claims made about it, not just a frame here and a frame there; the sightings in detail, not just an all-inclusive indictment of all sighings; the audio recordings spectrographically in comparison to the alternatives. This has not been done. The rumored rebuttal papers are proving as elusive as the Ivorybill itself. Instead we have seen opinions, piecemeal analyses, and lectures on Popperism, none of it gathered together, none of it submitted for peer review.
There is one rule in science that trumps all others:
Publish.
Well it's likely the paper was a little short on stories and dug into its archive pile. But a lot of what
Prum talks about is the finiteness of the area and people-hours usually needed to find a rare bird in a finite space. He's talking about Arkansas and the Cornell evidence.
There are other efforts, perhaps in more promising areas. The rush to declare the bird extinct after another fruitless year in Arkansas
makes it seem like "if Cornell can't document it, it must be extinct".
"No place is big enough, wet enough and wild and untrammeled... it must
be extinct and we very sure of this". Yet some skeptics continue to search this year.
Paul Sutera, New Paltz, NY
This was not a story from the archive pile.
The first sentence of Nargang's commentary indicates that he is responding to a skeptical Star Tribune editorial, which was published January 25, 2006.
There is one rule in science that trumps all others:
Publish.
Standby. A rebuttal paper will not be nearly as elusive as the Ivory-Bill.
"Act in haste, repent at leisure."
I'm sure there are people at Cornell who have considered that quote, and I'm sure Dr. Prum has thought that many times in regards to Cornell's paper AND his very hasty decision to retract his rebuttal paper.
I think it's fine to analyze the evidence without publishing, just as it's OK to search for the Ivory-Bill even if you don't plan to publish.
The point of a rebuttal paper is not to prove the Ivory-Bill is extinct, it's to prove that Cornell's paper falls far short of proof.
"Publish" That's an academic rule, not a scientific rule. "Reason", that's a scientific rule. When a bird is drawn upside-down, with it's head where it's feet belong and it feet where it's head belongs, it doesn't matter how flashy the journal is... the reasoning is just wrong. The science is poor. It doesn't matter that the illustration is re-printed in a website a year later, the reasoning is still wrong... even a year later.
The publication will come, but when it does, it will merely be a reporting of sound reasoning already well underway. You can be part of it now, or read about it later...
It's not opinion that you can't see 4 of the 5 field marks.
Why were we all so quick to accept evidence that:
1) did not report the bird having a head or bill
2) did not report the bird vocalizing WHILE being seen
3) was from people seeing the bird with the unaided eye from up to 100 meters
4) contained 'kent' calls without the full sequence as heard in the Allen recordings...
the list continues.
We just all need to stop and quit calling the bird FOUND! I'll accept FOUND??!!?, but this is NOT definitive evidence. NONE of the 'sightings' had the bird calling while observed. Come on people, this is SERIOUS, let's hold it to the same (or more rigorous) standards than a state records committee would. EVEN IF the video is an IBWO, it still has no head and no vocalizations. COME ON, we can't just ACCEPT that.
"Publish or Perish" is the academic rule. "Publish" is a standard practice dating back to the Renaissance, even Classical times.
The point remains, all the exclamation marks and bold face type here are just arguments happening in the Pub on a Saturday afternoon. Those arguments might provide food for thought, but it's nothing more than that until it is digested, organized, analyzed, and presented formally.
There is no explanation still as to why the Prum Robbins and Jackson paper has not been modified, updated, and resubmitted. This does not take 8 months.
There is no explanation still as to why the Prum Robbins and Jackson paper has not been modified, updated, and resubmitted. This does not take 8 months.
It can if you want a quality publication, regardless of the topic.
Post a Comment