Apparently, we're all hearing pretty much the same rumors about the alleged Florida Ivory-bill evidence, but as far as I know, most or all of us have not seen the actual alleged evidence. The evidence is consistently described along the standard double-knocky/blurry video/unsubstantiated sighting/etc lines.
Please remember that it's perfectly OK to express belief in the evidence without actually seeing it; however, note that all expressions of skepticism must wait until after the Official Announcement.
Persons expressing any skepticism before that time obviously know nothing about science. Where I come from (Minnesota), we have a phrase to describe such persons. We call them "Bad People Who Wish the Ivory-bill Was Extinct and Who Probably Hate Conservation and Puppies Too".
(Warning: This post contains extensive sarcasm.)
Tuesday
3 hours ago
Posts
50 comments:
Hold on there Tom ... did someone hijack your PC ... you afriad that you are going to be labled a fever swamp of skepticism for hosting this collection of ever more gleefull moon dancing in the auburn endzone - band of crazy skepticos? Well I got news for you mis amigo ... you already have been.
A call for moderation at this point is not a good idea.
You have been labled as a PRIME reason that IBWO has not been documented ... the skeptics have been charged with "extinguishing hope" itself.
The IBWO is both a bird and an idea - and you can say what you want about the bird but you have been totally against the "idea" of the bird and all it represents.
Remember Leslie Peacock confirming all that right here in this very space?
Yes Tom, you are the darkly cynical and skeptical troll that wasn't invited into the "circle of trust", not part of the "most ambitious recovery team" ever assembled, and not given a seat on the on the jet, nor a medal at the exploers club - because you don't seem earnest about your "belief" that there is a possibility, the way the mustachioed Dr. Fitzcrow and the ambassardors of "HOPE" do.
Don't hedge this one Tom, let your wraiths of syber skepticism frollick in the confidence that these birds ain't going to be found.
as someone said, 9 pairs hahahahahahahahahahahah
this really is an aside, but are you guys following the shuttle at all?
I think we need to get Fitz and his crew up there pronto. Low res images, and fast turn around on peer review are their strengths ...
story here
Mr. Hale said the object was first spotted early Tuesday by a camera in the Atlantis cargo bay. Low-resolution images and a lack of data about it prevent engineers from determining the object’s size, mass or exact shape, he said, making it hard to tell whether the item is critical to the shuttle or a sign of a threat. The pictures indicate a very small black object orbiting near the shuttle, Mr. Hale said.
“It could be a little something up close or a bigger something a little further away,” he said. “It’s a bit of a mystery.”
Mr. Hale said engineers believed that the object came off the shuttle after a routine checkout of its flight control system before landing. In the tests, in which the craft’s hydraulic flaps and control surfaces are moved and its steering rockets fired, the shuttle vibrates intensely and things can shake loose, he said.
Later Tuesday, an astronaut on the Atlantis spotted a second object floating by a window and photographed it. Mr. Hale told a televised news conference from the Johnson Space Center in Houston that the second object appeared to be a plastic bag mistakenly left in the cargo bay before launching.
These people could also be called pseudoskeptics. By denying rather than doubting, making judgements without full inquiry, discrediting rather than investigating, . . . etc., these people give True Skeptics everywhere a bad rap.
"Bad People Who Wish the Ivory-bill Was Extinct and Who Probably Hate Conservation and Puppies Too"
Irony, Tom? Welcome to the club.
Didn't your mean...Bad people who don't realize the Ivory-bill is extinct and believe that Puppies deserve Conservation too.
And as if the rumors aren't bad enough, now Cyberthrush is backing away from the "great" announcement.
Cyberthrush said on Birdforum dot Net,
"Again, I believe at least 2 people will claim to have seen the birds (always the chance the 2nd individual has only heard them);"
Is this what people are chasing? Two people claim to have seen the bird? That's it?
Warning
yeah, Tom, most of us got it!
Is it possible that Cyberthrush and Fishcrow are the same person?
So basically, it's an even bigger practical joke than I thought? Could I be right? Has anybody out there ever seen both of these gentlemen at the same time?
Well?
Precisely at what point did this story go down the rabbit hole?
Is stupidity inherited or acquired?
Are there only stupid sightings, or only stupid people?
Tom and anonymouses,
Yeah I get that you were being sarcastic, but the whole tone of this blog has just gotten ridiculous. The irony of your last few posts and the responses from your usual band of cynics is just beautiful to behold. You guys have fallen into the same trap as those you criticize so ruthlessly. Here is how I think this breaks down, and I am sure you guys will tell me why I am wrong (or if history is any guide you will probably ignore the content, give me a funny nickname, then jump straight to the ad hominems).
On the probably “still exists” side of things you have three groups. One is Cornell and friends who honestly believe they have the proof even though we don’t agree with them. A second group is the sober folks like Jerry Jackson who seriously allow for the possibility that they are still out there, and give consideration to evidence that is presented (or...gasp...actually go look themselves). And lastly you have the likes of Mary Scott who believes every report she receives and thinks every big woodpecker that she can’t get a good look at was probably an IBWO.
On the “it’s probably extinct” side of things I see two groups. One is the David Sibley camp: hopes they are still out there, carefully and respectfully considers the evidence, then says “you don’t have it”. Then you have Tom Nelson and company who sometime in the distant past were in that first group, but have become so obsessed with the “Cornell conspiracy” that they have lost all critical thinking ability. No need to wait for evidence, they KNOW it can’t be good enough, so they go ahead and trash it ahead of time.
There is no skeptic equivalent to Cornell—they are their own unique thing. But Sibley and Jackson are parallels; in fact there really is no meaningful distinction. But what is so sad, is that you guys have become the skeptical equivalent of Mary Scott. She believes everything without good reason, and you guys disbelieve everything without even considering the evidence. You are one in the same and your opinions are equally worthless.
Sarcasm, not irony, ironically.
Re: Cyberthrush... No version of the rumor I have heard has claimed sightings by more than one or two people. Usually the story is that the student has seen them, his/her major prof might have seen or heard them. Not really any change here.
Maybe the Texans in kayaks will bring back some decent photos? Only half joking there, actually. Personally, I think if private individuals want to go there and check it out with their own time, money, and equipment, more power to them. More field time and more data from more (competent) people = always good in my book.
Is it possible that anonymous #47 is the same person as Cyberthrush and Fishcrow?
Man, #47 absolutely hit the nail on the head.
Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear and shall not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware, both of that “more” and of the outsider’s incomprehension.-from Modern English Usage.
Bill, I'd say that fit Tom's post perfectly!
Mr. 47 may I introduce you to Evidence? Evidence this is Mr. 47.
Now that is sarcasm!
Ironically, irony has an evolving meaning, and its distinction from sarcasm is lessening.
Or perhaps it is like coppery and bronzy.
#47 said: There is no skeptic equivalent to Cornell—they are their own unique thing.
I think that the brunt of my ire goes out to Cornell, mainly because they should have known better in the first place that their evidence was junk. As Tom has documented, the reasons they are sure the bird exists keep moving. When they did the cardboard winged models, they completely "jumped the shark" and could really no longer be taken seriously. Their wingbeat "analysis" was just awful.
I think their behavior gave rise to an attitude that if Cornell was willing to push junk science, then nobody can really be trusted because emotions are just too high. I think they caused the bar to be set much higher and many of us are now unwilling to take anybody at their word. Blatant, obviously non-faked evidence is all that will do.
Although some here are definitely a bit snarky, I think the general frustration is with the regular trumpeting of horrible evidence. Crackpots are coming out of the woodwork, and it makes it a tougher environment for serious researchers.
I also believe that if somebody announces they are going to search for IBWO, nearly everybody here would wish them well. If, however, they come back with a blurry blob of a photo and say "See! Proof positive!!!", they will be mocked. (See Mike Collins' "morphometrics" argument for the kind of "proof" that deserves all the scorn it receives and then some.)
Stupidity.
I think this is a valid topic for this blog. Wikipedia has this,
"Recently a great deal of attention has been paid to another class of stupidity: stupid actions by those that are very educated and worldly. It is an important subject as it is increasingly evident that powerful, and generally very intelligent, people sometimes do stupid things. In recent years a number of notions such as groupthink have been developed to explain this."
Doesn't this fit the Believers perfectly? (sorry TB) Even the educated ones?
A second group is the sober folks like Jerry Jackson who seriously allow for the possibility that they [IBWOs] are still out there, and give consideration to the evidence that is presented (or...gasp...actually go look themselves).
To this group I would add Paul Sykes and Steve Holzman, who took it upon themselves to undertake a rigorous examination of the width of the grooves in woodpecker-scaled trees in the Big Woods of Arkansas and other geographic localities, only to have their results unceremoniously dismissed as "pseudo-scientific claptrap" by someone commenting anonymously on this blog; all because the results didn't agree with their preconceived notion that Ivory-bills are extinct. I know, I know, Sykes and Holzman aren't claiming that their finding of larger groove sizes in the Big Woods is consistent with the existence of IBWOs there, but that's one of the possibilities that must be considered.
you guys disbelieve everything without even considering the evidence.
Gosh, this sounds exactly like the creationist nutcases who argue that unless you are a mathematics Ph.D. well-versed in "information theory" you aren't qualified to dismiss creationist claims that evolution is "statistically impossible."
Look, my friend: the "evidence" in this case is 6 decades of diligent fruitless searching for a big loud bird and countless bogus sightings and claims which don't stand up to kindergarten level scrutiny.
When some hack calls up the newspaper with "evidence" that supports the "existence" of Sasquatch, does the newspaper stop the presses? Of course not. They hang up the phone. Is it "rude" or "unscientific" for the newspaper to do so? No, it isn't. It's bloody practical and reasonable.
Life on this planet is too short to pay serious attention and respect to attention-seeking cranks who simply don't "get it" and probably never will. The authors of the Science paper richly deserve the ridicule we provide them with here. It's in the public's interest to expose garbage science wherever we find it.
all because the results didn't agree with their preconceived notion that Ivory-bills are extinct.
Huh? Their measurements are perfectly consistent with the fact that the Ivory-billed woodpecker is extinct, just as the temperature of my coffee is perfectly consistent with that fact. In other words: every repeatable observation made by scientists for the past 60 years is consistent with that fact.
I know, I know, Sykes and Holzman aren't claiming that their finding of larger groove sizes in the Big Woods is consistent with the existence of IBWOs there, but that's one of the possibilities that must be considered.
Why "must it be considered" when there isn't a single living IBWO known to exist in that region? This is absurd.
As I asked in the previous thread where the data is discussed and someone made the bizarre claim that they were unable to formulate a single testable rational explanation for the measurements. That's pathetic or dishonest. Pick one.
A few thoughts for #47:
This blog has gotten ridiculous only in response to the increasingly absurd claims of TBs. If you want to read something truly ridiculous please revisit the original Science paper.
When we had putatively credible evidence to consider we carefully considered it, and we will be happy to consider any similar or better evidence if it ever appears.
Finally, thanks for your ad hominem attack claiming that our opinions are as worthless as Mary Scott's.
Warning: the last sentence contains sarcasm
#47,
Do you honestly believe that CLO honestly believes that it has proof of IBWO's existence? I think I'm being generous by saying that I doubt they do believe that.
The world of litigation is full of parties who stand by their interpretation of the evidence even though they don't believe it. I don't mean that as a slam. It's just the way it is.
It seems that cyberthrush doesn't understand sarcasm either, because he mistakenly claims that IBWO skeptics are backpedaling. Wishful thinking on this part!
Sykes and Holzman were mocked for good reason. It is silly for two grown men to rigorously measure the work of an extinct creature.
Pigeon-holing...
There are in fact very few people involved in this who automatically believe everything that comes down the pike (you'll find a few examples on Birdforum). Likewise, there are actually very few people who reflexively dismiss or trash everything they hear (you'll find some of them here).
As for the rest of the world, all this categorizing and stereotyping doesn't really help.
Amy Lester wrote:
"As I asked in the previous thread where the data is discussed and someone made the bizarre claim that they were unable to formulate a single testable rational explanation for the measurements. That's pathetic or dishonest. Pick one."
Methinks wrote:
"It seems that if you want to know what affects groove depth you'd need to measure lots of covariates (type of tree, type of decay, depth of tree decay, type of prey, depth of prey etc.) and have lots of information on known pileated grooves."
I respond:
It's actually the width of the groove that we felt could be distinctive. And we did have measurements from inside 4 known Ivory-billed cavities (17 marks with a mean width of 5.1 mm). It would be good to compare that with known PIWO cavities, but that wasn't done.
The one thing we did test was could the difference be explained by tree species. Statistically, it couldn't.
We did try to pick trees that were similar in age of bark scaling. You could tell fresh from old. So I think that age of scaling was pretty much controlled for.
I'm the first to express our lack of confidence in the method due to measurement variablity. But if someone asks me what was so different in eastern Arkansas that wasn't happening in the other states (basically why are there two peaks in the width curve in eastern AR and only one everywhere else) the only thing I can think of right now is if PIWOs are feeding differently in one region than another (perhaps slightly opening their bills when foraging in AR, vs not doing that in other SE states). I guess that could explain it. Amy, if you have some testable rational explanations I'd love to hear them.
I'm hoping that in the review process for the paper other resarchers will be able to suggest some options we didn't think of.
But know this, when Paul and I are looking for Ivory-bills we may look at scaling, but we'll never say Ivory-bills are here just based on foraging sign. We'd wait for those double-knocky knocks and kenty-kent calls. ;-)
And why do we look? I guess we still believe in the possiblity of existance. There's really nothing wrong with that scientifically or philosophically.
Well, as usual, Amy has pretty well put 47's comments to rest.
But I want to address the Stupidity argument. Amy ends with "...That's pathetic or dishonest. Pick one. " But really, there is another option. It could just be Stupid. This is what I have come to realize. Believers are just Stupid.
We are all trying to make it really really hard. But couldn't this just be the simple answer?
Bill, I sympathize with your struggle with irony. It trips up every freshman english major. My old Eng. Prof. could list 10 different types of Irony, verbal, situational, historical, etc. He could go on and on. And we poor students were just happy to get off the topic.
But he impressed this upon me. "A person hears of a nice restaurant. He goes down narrower and narrower roads to get there. He has a flat tire. He walks on. he swims a river. Finally, he get to the restaurant. It is closed!"
According to my professor, that is not irony. That is just what happened!
Anonymous #47 finally figures it out
Anon #47 said:
But what is so sad, is that you guys have become the skeptical equivalent of Mary Scott....You are one in the same and your opinions are equally worthless.
Okay so the cat is out of the bag. Of course Tom made up Mary Scott and started a website under her name to have the perfect foil on the believer side. Didn't you get it when whole thing about the "ivory bill whisperer" came out? What part of "sarcasm" are you having trouble with?
But Tom only did it because Cornell made the entire IBWO thing up and started this ball rolling. It's part of what is called the "cascading fantasy" phenomenon and Cornell pushed over the first domino so go to their site and rail on them for awhile. If they think they can make any money off you they will sign you up.
we did have measurements from inside 4 known Ivory-billed cavities (17 marks with a mean width of 5.1 mm).
Before or after you did your investigation? What was the variance in the measurements? I must admit that on its face the information content of this sort of "data" seems miniscule at best.
if someone asks me what was so different in eastern Arkansas that wasn't happening in the other states (basically why are there two peaks in the width curve in eastern AR and only one everywhere else) the only thing I can think of right now is if PIWOs are feeding differently in one region than another
That seems reasonable. What variation exists in known pileated woodpecker scaling? Were differences in scaling width ever successfully used by scientists to distinguish IBWO woodpeckers from pileated woodpeckers prior to their extinction?
And why do we look? I guess we still believe in the possiblity of existance.
Why?
On a scale of 1 to 1000, where 1000 is "certainty," what do you think the odds are that a living IBWO exists on earth right now?
There's really nothing wrong with that scientifically or philosophically.
Given that "time is money" and "time is finite" and "money is finite" and the ivory-billed woodpecker is as extinct as the dodo or Great Auk while other populations of *known* living organisms are disappearing, I think it is "wrong" for scientists to quest after it. It is a wasteful exercise to some extent and, perhaps worse, such quests seem prone to evolve into debacles such as the Cornell Science paper which risk eroding the public's trust.
Sincere apologies. It wasn't 5.1 for the cavities it was 4.1
X = 4.147 ± 0.087 SD mm; Range 4.0 – 4.3 mm, N = 17
Sorry.
FYI:
522 grooves were measured outside the two AR refuges mean = 2.8 se 0.014 sd = 0.32 range = 1.5-3.5
289 grooves were measured inside the two AR refuges mean = 3.6 se 0.035
sd = 0.594 range = 2.4 - 5.1
That's all I'm going to throw out (by way of data) on the blogs/forums. If the proceedings ever get published, I'll be glad to discuss any results.
1 to 1000 chance? I'm not going to put a number on it. I guess I'm just pathetic.
As a fluent English speaker for over four decades (that's sarcasm, not irony), I've developed a couple of rules of thumb for distinguishing the two...
Sarcasm: a falsely sincere statement made with the intention of showing the absurdity of the statement.
Irony: An incident, juxtaposition, circumstance, etc. that highlights the frailty, folly, and absurity of the human condition.
So, are you emphasizing a particular absurdity or the fundamental absurdity of all things?
A living language is a wonderful thing.
"So, are you emphasizing a particular absurdity or the fundamental absurdity of all things?"
Or, is it just what happened?
hahahahahahahahaha
I love you Bill!
"1 to 1000 chance? I'm not going to put a number on it. I guess I'm just pathetic. "
You only get a 1 in 1000 chance by arbitarily looking at the data and seperating out the points into two populations. Thus narrowing the variance on the remaining population and fooling yourself into there being a difference.
All of this based on a "wish" to discover a difference in the Ark. data. And with no reasonable explantion to do so.
Your explanation to Amy, finally, that perhaps Pileated feed differently is a million more times plausible than that IBWO are present in Ark. doing the scaling.
But no, you just had to leave the Believers with the "fact" that IBWOs live in Ark. with only a .001 chance of being wrong.
Jesus, man, I'd like to see you get this past your PHD committee.
Amy lester wrote:
"Given that "time is money" and "time is finite" and "money is finite" and the ivory-billed woodpecker is as extinct as the dodo or Great Auk while other populations of *known* living organisms are disappearing, I think it is "wrong" for scientists to quest after it. It is a wasteful exercise to some extent and, perhaps worse, such quests seem prone to evolve into debacles such as the Cornell Science paper which risk eroding the public's trust."
So, Amy, what is the incredibly important subject that you do research on, or do you actually do research?
"So, Amy, what is the incredibly important subject that you do research on, or do you actually do research? "
Hi fishcrow. Good to see you on the blog. Keep up the good work. Have you been to Florida yet?
So, Amy, what is the incredibly important subject that you do research on, or do you actually do research?
I study the effect of Sasquatch psychic energy on foreign stock markets.
Amy Lester is obviously proud to be an Ivory-bill atheist. Hurray for Amy! Anybody else willing to join Amy and publicly proclaim their atheism?
"Jesus, man, I'd like to see you get this past your PHD committee."
Remember I'm NOT a doctor. I have a Master's Degree IN SCIENCE!
Let's see who's old enough to remember where THAT comes from. No googling please.
---------------------
I'm done with school (for about 16 years now). So no committee is involved. In fact I'm just a bureaucrat who doesn't even have to publish to keep his job. How cool is THAT!
I don't know what you work on Amy, but I do know that when you google "Amy Lester Ithaca" you get to Tom's site at hit #3, but at hit #4 you get one of the all time great Nelson Threads...."Its A Wonderful Branch Stub".
Holzman came up with that title.
"Amy Lester is obviously proud to be an Ivory-bill atheist. Hurray for Amy! Anybody else willing to join Amy and publicly proclaim their atheism? "
Where you been, man? Give us a hard one.
Amy Lester is obviously proud to be an Ivory-bill atheist.
Oh, there's a lot of claims out there for which I have not seen remotely convincing evidence.
The ivory-billed woodpecker "controversy" is just one of the weirder ones because, for a few moments last year, it was headline news.
I'll get bored of this as soon as Science or Nature publishes a major paper about telepathy or spontaneous human combustion.
Amy lester wrote:
"Given that "time is money" and "time is finite" and "money is finite" and the ivory-billed woodpecker is as extinct as the dodo or Great Auk while other populations of *known* living organisms are disappearing, I think it is "wrong" for scientists to quest after it. It is a wasteful exercise to some extent and, perhaps worse, such quests seem prone to evolve into debacles such as the Cornell Science paper which risk eroding the public's trust."
Amy, does that mean anybody who studies an extinct organism is in your opinion conducting a "wasteful exercise" that is "wrong for scientists" to do? I have some paleontologist friends who think you should reconsider.
"I have some paleontologist friends who think you should reconsider."
Paleontology is a science. IBWOlogy has become a religion.
Amy, does that mean anybody who studies an extinct organism is in your opinion conducting a "wasteful exercise" that is "wrong for scientists" to do?
Fossils exist. Living IBWOs do not.
They're in middens, not up in the swamp tupelos.
George M. Sutton, my bird mentor and professor of ornithology of many years ago would only accept three forms of bird ID verification: 1) a dead bird (which would promptly go in his collection at the bird range at OU); 2) a "good" photo of the bird; or 3) that Doc Sutton himself saw it. Well Doc, the finest ornithologist, bird artist, and gentlemen that ever walked this earth, is now painting IBWP's in heaven. He's the only human I ever heard talk about seeing an IBWP. I'll believe it when someone can produce at least 1 of Doc's proof of an IBWP (and #3 is unlikely)
George M. Sutton, my bird mentor and professor of ornithology of many years ago would only accept three forms of bird ID verification: 1) a dead bird (which would promptly go in his collection at the bird range at OU); 2) a "good" photo of the bird; or 3) that Doc Sutton himself saw it.
I have similar standards, except my number 3 is a little different. I have to see it myself. I think we all have a similar standard. Think about it.
Face it..... the Ivory Bill is officially extinct! Happy?
Yay!
Oh wait... a tick, who can officially proclaim that?
Post a Comment