A lone voice of reason

Many of us were interested to read the following in a recent Arkansas Times article:

With three other members of the Bird Records Committee of the Arkansas Audubon Society, Neal voted to accept Dr. David Luneau’s evidence that the ivory-bill was back in Arkansas. The vote was 4-1.

Mike Mlodinow was the odd man out. Mlodinow, a researcher who like Neal and James lives in Fayetteville, was not impressed with the evidence. “I don’t like the video,” he said, referring to Luneau’s film of the bird, the feather in the cap of evidence presented to Science magazine. “You can barely tell it’s a bird.”

“For something like an ivory-billed woodpecker, you have to be pretty sure,” Mlodinow said. “If you’re wrong, it’s like crying wolf. You have to be exceptionally certain.”

Mlodinow called it “strange” that Cornell biologists interpreted every facet of the 4-second film as supportive of their interpretation that it is of an ivory-billed woodpecker. “It’s almost too good to be true.”

After I emailed Mike and asked for further comments, he graciously emailed me the following reply, dated June 17, 2006:

Dear Tom,

I have not read the Arkansas Times article,but there is at least one significant error,Joe Neal is not a member of the ABRC.The current members include Doug James,an Ornithology prof. at U. of AR in Fayetteville;Max Parker,the "curator" of bird records(the head of the ARBC);Chris Kellner,an ornithology prof. at AR State U. in Russellville,Kenny Nichols,the state's most active and productive birder from Pangburn,and then there is me. We have to state a reason in writing when we reject a record along with our vote.If you're interested I could send you a copy via "snail mail".In brief I thought that the video,despite the extensive analysis,gave rather weak proof for the existence of the Ivory-biled Woodpecker(IBW).I thought that the amount and positioning of black and white on the bird was open to interpretation;that the bird's "length" was dependent on knowing its posture more precisely than could be claimed; and that if the bird resided in the area searched, that a roost and/or nest sites would have been found during the last 2 seasons.I did not know what to make of the vocalizations.It seemed that the "double raps" might be made by other things,but it was hard for me to reconcile the "kent" calls.However,if they were really made by IBWs I think that the searchers would have located the bird(s).I did not even mention Bayes' Rule,since I regard the evidence to be weak, a priori.I did mention that if it became accepted that the IBW still lived when it actually did not,that this would ultimately involve considerable cost to birders, environmentalists, and to the scientific community,whereas rejection involved little cost-one could still claim that the bird may exist,just not that it definitely did. In the end,I think it's "possible",but unlikely,that the "Luneau" bird could have been an IBW,but that there's strong negative evidence against any residing there now;something which is implicitely admitted by the Cornell Team,as they will search mostly elsewhere next season.

Perhaps,it is already clear as to how and why the IBW came to be accepted as living,but I refer you to a novel by Allegra Goodman to help imagine the psychological pressures that may be involved,both on the side of the accepters and on the side of the deniers.The title is "Intuition".

You can use the above in any way you see fit.

Sincerely,
Mike

Personally, I think Mike deserves a lot of credit for standing as the lone voice of reason on the Arkansas Bird Records Committee.