You know, Tom, this whole "what is science" thing is interesting to me.
...
I'd really like to know what the path was from Fitz's "cryptic" email to Kennedy up to the time of "publication"? The reason I'm so curious is because the Cornell video interpretation on which much of the paper rests is obviously so wrong - most glaringly the interpretation of 33.3 (and all that flows from it).
The reason for my emphasis on this is that Simon and Luneau are satisfied in saying, "look we have this article in Science" ...so Jerome Jackson's "opinion" is just some form of skeptical heresy ... if Jerome Jackson wants to talk to us, he should write a peer-reviewed article. Gallagher talks about "raising the bar" in his interview. Raising the bar?
But what does that mean? ... what did it mean for Science to "peer review" the paper in the first place? What were the "peer" reviewers thinking? How did they conduct their review ... what was their feedback? Did they suggest any changes? Were there drafts and revisions? Was there a discussion of "what constitutes proof"?
My concern is that because the discovery team's (Fitz et al.) credentials are impeccable - peer review meant reviewing the "credentials" of the authors (who were at the time they went to Science in the late stages of some "big dealings" TNC style. The senior editor at Science "got back to him in a NY minute" and relayed his blessings in hebrew "blessed are those who raise the dead"?
Lets not fault Cornell for ACTING on their belief. If I was these guys and I thought I had an IBWO I'd put the call into TNC HQ for the revolving loan too ... as much as Fitzpatrick is a "scientist" he is a power player conservationist - one who believes that the goal of bird study is to preserve and protect birds and their habitat. His involvement as a board member in numerous conservation groups speaks to this. He is a man who leverages his knowledge and connections with power into ACTION - and he should not be knocked for doing this. However the idea of science (small s) should not be tossed out in pursuit of the objective of these greater goods (conservation). The journal Science is not a conservation organization, it is in many ways a gatekeeper of a very important idea upon which the western world and enlightenment priciples rest - scientific objectivity.
Science's failure in this regard is the bigger issue, NOT Cornell's action or (flawed evidence). It is too easy for people to say "well the ends justify the means" ... which I hear in the form of "well it is good that we are conserving big old trees".
Science, must not be used as a tool for "ends" no matter how good those ends and we must learn EXACTLY who the peer reviewer are and what they did to review the paper. How did it happen that Science Magazine (and the peers) did not look at the video as you and I did and say ... whoa, that sketch doesn't look like frame 33.3 ... ??
I think we need to create a condition where the "believers" can believe (and keep looking) but can not do so with the satisfaction of saying, "look Science has published this ... we have met the burden of proof demanded of us by science". There is no reason Cornell should not ACT on their belief... but they should not hijack objectivity in the process or tell others that "this is canonized" upon publication in the prestigious journal Science.
Contrary to what Gallagher seems to be saying in his interview, the goal posts aren't moving here,and Gallagher isn't a "dudes or a stringer" he believes what he believes - and is sure that he saw what he saw ... and TNC can buy what they can buy and convince USFWS and the other powers in government that this should be a priority (they have that power) ... but science must insist on objective proof and be clear on what constitutes proof...
The focus of the demand for proof should fall, not on Cornell, but on the journal Science ... which has erred and failed to do a job that is vital.
Friday, March 10, 2006
More from the mailbag
From an anonymous person:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
I think it is completly justified to fault Cornell for ACTING on its "belief". They know full well how records are verified and by going to print with evidence that would typically not meet the minimum criteria for a first state record they showed that they required a level of proof below that of many birders and ornithologists. There is no easier way to lose credibility in the birding community than by trying to gain status (or in Cornell's case funding) by touting badly documented observations. One can argue if Cornell suffered from a lack of rigor or a lack of character but an assessment of the latter should be evident in how they address a lack of subsequent sightings.
I think it is completly justified to fault Cornell for ACTING on its "belief".
I tend to agree with that post, although Science should have applied more objective science and less enthusiasm in publishing the Cornell paper.
How did it happen that Science Magazine (and the peers) did not look at the video as you and I did and say ... whoa, that sketch doesn't look like frame 33.3 ... ??
Mr. Nelson, may I ask what is you're intrepretation of frame 33.3?
"Mr. Nelson, may I ask what is you're intrepretation of frame 33.3?"
I interpret this frame as a view of the underside of a normal Pileated's open wing, NOT the upperside of a perched Ivory-bill's folded wing.
More detail is available under item 7 at this link .
"Mr. Nelson, may I ask what is you're intrepretation of frame 33.3?"
I interpret this frame as a view of the underside of a normal Pileated's open wing, NOT the upperside of a perched Ivory-bill's folded wing.
Perhaps this isn't the place to re-hash this argument, though the original post makes a major point about this frame. Maybe it's better to wait until the Sibley, Patten, Bevier paper to come out next week because I'm sure this will be a major point of the article. But I have trouble accepting that this is such an obvious error considering that 1) the shape of white is also not consistent with the underside of a Pileated wing -- the edge is usually even over it's entire length (sorry if I haven't explained that very well), 2) while the Science paper sketch does not appear to be accurate, the photograph that Cornell has provided of a mounted specimen in a similar position is a good match, 3) the left edge of the white area is smooth, suggesting that it is not significantly blurred, and 4) there is no apparent black trailing edge to the wing -- the white meets green at some spots, in others, it does touch a dark area, but in subsequent frames that dark area remains is obviously part of the vegetation.
I bring this up here because in another post, you mentioned that dark areas that Cornell apparently(?) interpreted as parts of the bird were actually parts of the vegetation. It seems that the same mistake is being made here.
It is untrue to suggest that the video interpretation somehow hinges on frame 33.3. There are many points in the video analysis that stand separately from each other. Frame 33.3 has no bearing at all on interpretation of the location of white on the wings of the bird in flght, or the wingbeat rate, or the presence or absence of white on the dorsum, for example.
I could not agree less about the statements of responsibility for arbitrating the truth. This is not the duty of journal editors, or individual reviewers, or even individual researchers or research teams. "Truth" in its scientific sense is decided by the scientific community as a whole, over many years, after many studies. It is absurd to go around trying to ascribe responsibility or blame to one party or another. It also does absolutely nothing to further real discussion. It almost sounds at times like a witch hunt or lynch mob, searching for villains to burn or string up. You are almost appointing the journal editors to be a censorship board, which they most emphatically are not!
This paragraph is especially disturbing:
But what does that mean? ... what did it mean for Science to "peer review" the paper in the first place? What were the "peer" reviewers thinking? How did they conduct their review ... what was their feedback? Did they suggest any changes? Were there drafts and revisions? Was there a discussion of "what constitutes proof"?
What of all this? None of this is known, nor need it be. This string of "do they still beat their wives?" questions that are posed with ominous overtones but not even attempted to answer has no bearign whatsoever on the questions of interpretation of the evidence presentet. It serves no purpose other than to cast completely unsupported suspicions.
It almost sounds at times like a witch hunt or lynch mob, searching for villains to burn or string up.
You forgot Hitler. The skeptics are also much like Hitler. ; )
Actually, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assign "blame" for whoever is responsible for presenting as scientific fact something that is, in the opinion of most ornithologists, certainly not proven, even if possibly true.
There are many points in the video analysis that stand separately from each other.
Hardly. The whole package of the video doesn't even stand on its own, let alone each part. If each point stood on it's own I hardly think Sibley's paper would be coming out in a few days.
Tom can you describe the position of the rest of the bird you believe accounts for frame 33.3. You only show an example of one wing, a description or sketch of the rest of the bird would be useful in assessing your theory. Where is the tail at 33.3, where is the other wing, where is the body?
Regarding a sketch for frame 33.3--I am planning to provide a crude one in an upcoming post. (By the way, if you view frame 33.3 in context with the adjacent frames, I think it becomes much clearer that frame 33.3 does show a black trailing wing edge. More on this later.)
If each point stood on it's own I hardly think Sibley's paper would be coming out in a few days.
But isn't it coming out in that same worthless rag, "Science," that you have spent months demonstrating frequently publishes nonsense with absolutely no quality control or meaningful review?
Well I look forward to your sketch. I agree that it is critical in evaluating the video to treat it as a video and pay attention to adjacent frames. Personally I think the fully outstretched wing theory is DOA exactly because of that reason. If you look at the subsequent frames the tail pivots into view after that frame. I don't buy that the bird has its wings fully outstretched and then pivots as shown in the video. Its just not the way birds take off. Look at all the comparison Pileated clips at Cornell. Birds start to pivot well before their wings are outstretched. Because of the way the tail pivots into view I think the white of 33.3 shows an opening wing that then disappears as the bird pivots as Cornell described. But I do think you still have to convince yourself that it is not the underside of an opening Pileated wing (see frame 3 of clip 7 of the comparison clips for an example).
the veeb
Birds start to pivot well before their wings are outstretched.
I don't subscribe to the outstretched wing theory, but I also don't think it's safe to assume that a woodpecker would _always_ pivot it's entire body before opening it's wing. Yes, it _would_ pivot the body above the tail before opening the wing, but I believe that there's a chance that the tail would stay downward until the bird is actually in flight. Since woodpeckers use the tail for support, friction might keep it against the tree until the bird releases its grip on the tree.
I guess my statement was over generalized. My point was that this bird is pivoting in the two frames that follow 33.3 as evidenced by the motion of what appears to be the tail. I think the only way you could get that tail motion is if the bird's feet are still attached to the tree in those 2 frames. I would also guess by reversing the tail motion in those 2 frames that the bird was nearly vertical in frame 33.3. I don't think the bird would have its wings fully extended when it is nearly vertical and then twist its body. I would think that it would twist its body some and then extend its wings. Given the trajectory it has when it emerges from the other side of the tree and the fact that a 12" tree is obscuring the wings I think the axis along fully spread wings would have to be fairly close to that of the tree's axis and that the full extension before the 1st power stroke would occur at the 3rd or 4th frame after 33.3. But that's my interpretation...
the veeb
"The journal Science is not a conservation organization, it is in many ways a gatekeeper of a very important idea upon which the western world and enlightenment priciples rest - scientific objectivity.
Science's failure in this regard is the bigger issue, NOT Cornell's action or (flawed evidence)."
Well, that's the crux of the thing in a nutshell. If the paper had failed peer review and not been published, and Cornell/TNC had gone ahead to solicit funding to search, there would have still have been plenty of hoopla, but not the unfortunate run of events that is playing itself out. The only horse I have in this race is my concern for the implications it will have for conservation funding and scientific credibility.
"What of all this? None of this is known, nor
need it be. This string of "do they still beat their wives?" questions
that are posed with ominous overtones but not even attempted to answer has no
bearing whatsoever on the questions of interpretation of the evidence presented.
It serves no purpose other than to cast completely unsupported suspicions".
I think that these questions do bear on the issue - and being as how Tom
Nelson and Jerome Jackson have presented a thorough interpretation of the
evidence - especially of frame 33.3 - which a lot of other Fitzpatrick et. al's
paper rests on - I think that the question of "why this sighting is any
different from the other sightings" brings us to the fact that powerful
people "believe" the sightings - not because they have presented firm
evidence. The questions are appropriate because of things that are being
reported in the media by the search team - who is using the science article as a
kind of "there's your proof" moment and underneath this is the concept
of "peer review" ... in this case it seems as if Donald Kennedy, the
editor of Science SHOULD answer these questions.
I explain my thinking on this more fully in this
comment
I think it is possible that Science rushed this article to publication
without doing the very thing that the editor himself characterizes as "the
most important thing"
I don't know if this is true or not - I'm only ASKING the question. Did
Science participate in "reverse peer review"?
Post a Comment