Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Twisted Tree Heartrot Hill Revisited4 weeks ago
-
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係3 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To4 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Posts
Comments
10 comments:
What are the statistical implications with a sample size of 5 non-fleeing birds? Is that the evidence that Fitz et al. based their claim on, or am I misrepresenting the data?
How abnormal is it for someone to publish a statement like:
"The close match between the Luneau woodpecker
and the 1935 recording is especially important
because both are faster than any wingbeat frequency ever documented for pileated woodpecker."
and not give a reference to the documentation or indicate that the sample size was, well, 5 non-fleeing birds?
There has to be some objective statement that can be made about the above claim based on concepts one should have taken away from Statistics 101 if one's profession was ornithology. No? I haven't used statistics since Statistics 101 so I'm a bit fuzzy but my intuition is that Cornell's statement is highly misleading for a scientific publication. No?
Can they get away with that without getting called on it. I mean Fansheath there is assuming all sorts of things based on the assumption that Cornell's practicing good science. Is this blatant or acceptable to ornithologist and other scientists?
Has anyone calculated a p?
Yes, it would have been nice if the authors, reviewers, and Science editors had understood and endorsed the concepts of Statistics 101. Misuse of statistics and unrealistic models is rampant in science and Science, and the IBWO fiasco is no exception. A case in point was the absurd calculation of a p-value for the extinction probability of IBWO in a recent letter to Science by a researcher from Kew. As is so often the case, this researcher compounded his error by incorporating erroneous data in his calculations, as he accepted a post-1944 record from Florida as valid.
Herpetologists have been among the first to widely embrace dubious concepts such as the Phylocode, so it doesn't surprise me too much that one of them would describe the uncritical acceptance of pseudostatistical methods and results as standard procedure in this field.
As is so often the case, this researcher compounded his error by incorporating erroneous data in his calculations, as he accepted a post-1944 record from Florida as valid.
Erroneous, not valid? Not necessarily. I believe even Mr. Nelson has made a statement that some of the post-Singer Tract records may have been valid.
Freaking Jeebus on a cracker.
Long after the "killer" video is published
Amen, brrruhhhtherrrrr!!!!
we will be getting such videos. The question is, what are we going to do with them? Ignore them? Many of us on this forum realize how incredibly irresponsible that is.
And that is why you are heavily involved in Sasquatch, UFO and Loch Ness Monster research, right? And poltergeists -- don't forget the poltergeists! After all, it would be "incredibly irresponsible" to ignore all the sightings and unexplained feenomonum on camera and video.
In many cases they will be the only physical evidence we have of the species in a given area, at least initially.
It's a well-known fact that IBWOs do not crap or shed feathers. Ever!!!! They are very clean animals.
I have little interest in records committees or the judgments of "experts."
BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Those who believe in the IBWOs extinction are likely to believe in other stories that the "experts" try to tell us, like "The Grand Canyon was eroded," or "Life on earth evolved."
Okay, he didn't really say this last paragraph but he might as well have. All hail another True Believer in the Pixelated Woodpecker.
Pathetic.
I have little interest in records committees or the judgments of "experts."
This guy wants a silver bullet for bird ID by wingbeat. It doesn't exist, and the "experts" that he has little interest figured that out decades ago. Deal with it.
Aren't we, the IBWO skeptics, skeptical of all post-1944 US records?
I admit that "erroneous" may not have been the best way to describe the post-1944 records from Florida. It would have been better if I had substituted the phrase "inadequately documented, unconfirmed, and therefore widely doubted."
Whoever keeps saying that fishcrow.com is a practical joke has been getting slightly irritating .. but now he's posted this:
http://fishcrow.com/heads.avi
I'm coming around to your theory!!
I accept your apology! And I ask again,
Is www.fishcrow.com not the best practical joke of all time?
The fishcrow has pioneered bird ID with this video ... I mean it has me thinking that what I need in the field is a set of transparencies that I can hold up to the sky when a bird flies by to see if it fits the shape ... you know like the plane spotters in WWII before there was a peterson guide.
there is no sound with the video, but the way the thing flashes it made me think of the shower scene in psycho ... or the news paper scene in High Anxiety ...
Post a Comment