Here.
Update 1: Related discussion at Birdforum here.
Update 2: In a post entitled "Boneheaded groupthink", Laura Erickson endorses Cyberthrush's 13 points here.
Friday Funny: MAD SCIAM MAGAZINE
30 minutes ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
The Carpinterio sincerely hopes that the lawyers for the COE don't get hold of this bit of legalese genius.
The first 5 points the slythrush makes read like a slam dunk for moving ahead with the irrigation project. With a species as resilient, blessed with limitless (and un searchable) habitat and teflon coated ovaries ... both sides should agree that there is no danger to the bird at all.
Funny how the undocumented IBWO is indestructible but if they ever document an IBWO it will instantly become the most precious fragile thing to ever grace the cover of "giving bird" ...
'They' refers to the skeptics, so would you please NAME the 'skeptics' that are actively out searching 'all over the place' for the IBWO?
"1. They
greatly UNDERestimate the amount of adequate
habitat..._____________________No one has done that - hence the
searches all over the place."
I couldn’t agree more with Cyberthrush. Each and every point satisfies me completely… that is when I recognize what it is that’s being listed: The list is bound together by the simple fact that there is no evidence that “Ivorybill Lives”. This is a list of reasons why it’s OK to believe that “Ivorybill Lives” despite the skeptics reminders that there is no evidence.
We’re all in agreement with Cyberthrush that there is no evidence to found belief upon.
Ok, he's convinced me. www.fishcrow.com is NOT the best practical joker of all time.
It's Cyberthrush! (Followed by www.fishcrow.com)
Just substitue Elvis, Bigfoot, UFO's, Coldfusion, and WMD as the subject of his 13 points and they fit perfectly. It's all a practical joke; I tell you.....just a great big practical joke...oh and a lame effort to keep a blog alive that unfortunately (for him) took the wrong side of the issue.
Actually, his 13 points are the exact opposite! They are a complete and perfect list of where True Believers have lost their way.
A Skeptic couldn't have made a better list.
(sorry TB)
Just saw on the Illinois bird email list that National Geographic's 7th edition of their field guide will be printed this fall. Wonder what its take of the IBWO will be?
I'm afraid that the "believers" have drifted into the realm of madness.
I hope we can find a more worthy adversary soon.
Blessed be the crazies
For it’s your enemies
Who define you
Who make you argue
And make you recall
That Sagan catchall
That extraordinary claims
Often have other aims
Which often have to do less
With truth than with truthiness
"Anonymous said...
I'm afraid that the "believers" have drifted into the realm of madness." ******** Nope. Just a good sense of reality. Mark my word, 'skeptics' will eat every word said very soon. You have NO IDEA what is in the pipeline!
If you think this indicates a descent into madness you should look at the latest on BirdForum. A cajun hunter (choupique1) is now claiming that there are two, yes that's right two, IBWO in the fishcrow video. So, if fishcrow is happy to keep banging on about what a hiqh-quality birder he is, how come he didn't see either of these birds? And didn't find the second one in his video himself? With the PIWO that the rest of us can see that makes at least three woodpeckers that escaped fishcrow's attention while he was looking at them. Why can't the believers see that these f**king magic-eye pictures are not going to convince anyone?
cynically yours
Anonymous wrote:
"Mark my word, 'skeptics' will eat every word said very soon."
As a skeptic I would love to be shown the proof. For sure I wouldn't be proud of having descending to cynicism due to the lack of quality evidence to date. I'll take my comeuppance, just show me indisputable proof.
I've heard some rumors of new marginal video, maybe from somewhere around Florida? Anyone heard anything else "in the pipline"?
"3. They wholly underestimate the tenaciousness and adaptability of living things in general, and this species in particular."
Yes, let's recall the tenacity and resilience of the Passenger Pigeon, the Carolina Parakeet, the Eskimo Curlew, the Bachman's Warbler, the Labrador Duck, the Great Auk, the Dusky Seaside Sparrow, Guadalupe Storm-petrel, and Guadalupe Caracara....
I know (and have seen) some of what's in the pipeline (I wouldn't know how much of course), but what I have seen does not impress me in the least. TRUST ME....if there was some killer evidence it would NOT be in the pipeline, it would be on the news. There's a freakin court decision about stopping a huge project. There is HUGE incentive to CONFIRM the existance of an IBWO regardless of location. As far as I know, nothing 'in the pipeline' does that.
I've heard some rumors of new marginal video, maybe from somewhere around Florida? Anyone heard anything else "in the pipline"?
I found this recent story in the Palm Beach Post:
http://tinyurl.com/lqyrz
Of course, the "know-it-all" who may have seen an IbWo also claims that the helium-balloon powered lawn chair is an urban myth:
http://tinyurl.com/l7jgu
Yes, over dinner a few months back I heard word of the same...FLA panhandle, several birds, eye witnesses but no video or photos, and heard word that some government folks had gone out looking for same.
If there is someone out there with real info on this, it'd be great if they'd post it rather than sit on it.
"If there is someone out there with real info on this, it'd be great if they'd post it rather than sit on it. "
Yes, just sit there because the folks in white labcoats will be by soon to pick you up.
"If there is someone out there with real info on this,"
I have real info on this. Please transfer $1000 into my swiss bank account # 1887463849 and I will email you the details.
No sharing of details with friends. Void where prohibited.
Mark my word, 'skeptics' will eat every word said very soon. You have NO IDEA what is in the pipeline!
What anonymous and others of that ilk just refuse to grasp is that "what's in the pipeline" is meaningless to our discusions. What is meaningful is the quality of the evidence presented thus far, the quality of the subsequent interpretations, and the conclusions that were jumped to. Video of 100 Ivory-billeds won't change any of that ... even more so if the video is from another place.
And despite the baseless accusations of the faithful, we skeptics actually WANT to see incontrovertible proof. Nothing would make us happier. But it still wouldn't make us wrong about the opinions we hold today.
Mark my word, 'skeptics' will eat every word said very soon. You have NO IDEA what is in the pipeline!
Too funny.
In fact, I do know what's in the pipeline: and endless parade of gullible and willfully ignorant morons who will never ever admit that the IBWO is extinct.
After all, this "population" that is alleged to exist now by the True Believers could produce a handful of IBWO's who could begat a couple more IBWO's so that 50 years from now there might be "one or two" of these "shy" birds still going about their business and producing "double knocks" in the swamp.
I think Bigfoot keeps them for pets in his underground fortress and, hey, you can't prove me wrong. Can I have some money for my conservation cause?
I have 100% confidence that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is extinct. I do not wishy washy around on this. It is as dead as the dodo. Any "good pics" will be fakes. Any other evidence will be of bigfoot quality.
You heard it here first.
Anonymous wrote:
"But it still wouldn't make us wrong about the opinions we hold today."
Unless your opinion is that none of the evidence to date can be generated by an IBWO because IBWOs are extinct. Very few people would care about the evidence to date and arguments about them if someone produced a 30 second full-frame video clip of an IBWO clearly showing multiple distinct field marks. So you could be right about your opinions about the evidence, but they would be essentially moot. Time will tell. Unfortunately I think the arguments and opinions will remain relevant.
More thoughts regarding cyberthrush’s recent post…
“7. They utterly fail to comprehend the difficulty of getting photographic evidence”
I still find this argument to be unreliable. Consider this: there have been an estimated > 400 IBWO specimens obtained. In most cases, these were obtained
by using a small gauge shotgun, with perhaps #6 – 12 shot. Does anyone want to guess how close the collector had to get to make a kill with that popgun? Were the
old-timers more stealthy?
“10. They ignore the law of large numbers' -- the more times an occurrence is reported (in this case, Ivory-bill sightings) the greater the likelihood that some of those reports are true.”
The “lots-of-bad-reports-equals-a-few-good-ones” theory. If believed, this would make Bigfoot a cinch. The Chupacabra is regularly reported in Mexico, but…..
“11. In the particular instance of the Arkansas claims they focused far too much time, energy, and thought on a single 4-second piece of video, rather than looking fully, objectively, at the entire range of evidence past and present.”
What “evidence past and present”? The only evidence I have seen is from the Singer Tract, by Tanner, et. al. And by the way, why are believers sweeping the
video under the rug? Isn’t it the “solid evidence” Fitzpatrick spoke of with such dramatic enthusiasm only about 15 months ago?
Judging from some believer's comments... it seems they can't quite grasp the concepts that A) there is a very reasonable threshold of evidence that many skeptics would eagerly embrace, and B) that many skeptics will indeed be delighted when and if such evidence is produced.
It goes back to that damn crying thing... many current skeptics cried for joy at the "re-discovery", cried again when they realized they'd been duped, but will cry for joy one more time if a bird is documented to any reasonable standard.
Remember the prodigal son's dad? Faithful son just couldn't figure out why Dad made such a fuss when prodigal son showed up again... Well it may be hard for believers who have been faithful all along (emphasis on 'faith') to grasp this, but like the dad, most skeptics will still throw party if reasonable evidence shows up on their doorstep. Eating their words really isn't something they worry about.
Who's calling who "stubbornly boneheaded?" If we skeptics are labelled as such by psychothrush, then what can we come up with to describe the believer hordes? How about "hopelessly feebleminded?"
Well, better late than never...
In answer to what we call the believers, mumpsimuses.
mumpsimus (pl. mumpsimuses) n.
•A person who obstinately adheres to old ways in spite of clear evidence that they are wrong
•A traditional custom or notion adhered to although shown to be unreasonable.
--a person who obstinately adheres to such a custom or notion.
source: Oxford English Dictionaries
Post a Comment