Here are a few of my favorite sentences:
...As the statistical probability of these events all occurring is calculated, you approach a 99.999% chance that the field observers have located one or more Ivory-billed Woodpeckers.
...The skeptics who require photographic proof should consider funding their own private photo expedition.
...The shrinking group of naysayers should be ignored as their erroneous opinions head toward extinction.
Posts
26 comments:
And we wonder why the Horseshoe Crab harvest can't be stopped! With friends like this, the Redknot stop-over in NJ is doomed.
When did the nutters and dudes-and-stringers take over bird conservation?
Man, I knew Virazzi was a loony, but that article really makes it clear how loony he is! I particularly like this bit:
"Research and conservation are
paramount to saving this unusual and
neglected species that has somehow survived a myriad of blunders, not the least being the collection of hundreds of specimens. Are we again to make mistakes involving collecting with today’s very mild version of the shotgun – the video
and still camera?"
What?? Does he have any idea what he's talking about? First of all, the "hundreds of specimens" were not collected all at once, and did not directly cause the population crash of the species. The population crash was BECAUSE OF HABITAT DISTRUCTION. Anyone who thinks collections caused the extinction of the species does not understand ecology, population biology, or collecting.
Second, how can one possibly say that photography and specimen collection are the same. They are two very different (and very important) ways to document. In the case of the IBWO, photography is obviously the only viable option because nothing dies (except a very small part of the believers every time they realize they've just photographed another PIWO).
Finally, to say that it's sooooo much more important to make observations and design "good science" (!) than to document the identity of the bird in question with a photo is so ridiculously maddening, I don't even know where to start. I guess if you don't try to document a putative IBWO so that the id can be verified later, then it *must* be an IBWO. However, if you document it, it'll surely be a PIWO. It's like Schrödinger's Cat.
I bet Frank is the kind of guy who pulls into a busy intersection without looking both ways first because "if I don't see it, it mussen't be there."
Too bad I'm in the dwindling minority of naysayers. Sigh.
My Two Cents
>99%, I don't think so. 89% is my current est.
the video from Louisiana/
Mississippi (www.fishcrow.com) is not an ivory-bill, etc.
WTF? He's actually taking fishcrow seriously!
The data for a rare,
wide-ranging species with a large territory should be judged in its entirety and not by anthropomorphic barriers that break down the evidence to less comprehensive
packets.
In other words, don't look too closely at each piece of "evidence" because they keep falling apart.
Poor-quality Arkansas video, showing correct wingbeat frequency and flight pattern for ivory-billed.
He stills believes the Luneau video is an IBWO! And he still believes the wingbeat fantasy.
We await the skeptics’ picture...
Huh? If skeptics ask for a photo before accepting the believers' premise, then they should go out and get it themselves? I repeat. Huh?
He has managed to ignore every single contra argument. His basis for IBWO existence is literally summed up as "what are the odds that all contrary explanations are correct." Right now, I'd say pretty high.
He is trying to argue that quality evidence isn't necessary. Sorry, but a pile of crappy evidence is still crappy. Since there is a lack of any real quality evidence, I for one would not support any form of faith-based conservation based upon supposed IBWOs. I'll give my support when I'm convinced, not before.
Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
I didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them IBWOs they wus comin' around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace. . .
So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road.
Yee-hoo, I'm a real Ornithologist now!
Bobby Harrison, eat your heart out.
Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned birds
I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed,
Looked in the sink, behind the door,
Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
Couldn't find 'em . . .
I wus lookin' high an' low for them peckers everywhere,
I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair.
I looked way up at that big roost hole,
I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
They're shy, you know . . .
Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat,
Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
Peeked behind the picture frame,
Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain.
Them peckers caused it!
I know they did . . . them ivory-billed ones.
Well, I quit my job so I could search some more,
Then I went to work for Geoffrey Hill.
Followed some clues from my microphone
And heard the peckers shoutin' all day long!
My computer friends helped a bit . . .
Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away.
I investigated all the people that I knowed,
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
The other two percent are fellow Believers . . . just like me.
Now Tom Nelson, he's a naysayin freak, like
El Carpinterio, Jerome Jackson and that Sibley guy.
To my knowledge there's just one man
That's really a true American: Fred Virazzi.
He knows a statistical fact when he sees one.
Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa roost holes to contemplate.
Couldn't imagine doin' anything real,
So now I'm sittin' in the swamp lookin for Bigfoot's heel!
Is that a piece of hair? . . . hmm, great God!
Waddaya think: is someone who believes there is a 99% chance the Ivory-bill is extant (rather than extinct) less intelligent than someone who believes there is a 5% chance, and is someone who believes there is a 5% chance less intelligent than someone like Tom, Amy or John who believes there is a 0% chance?
Unfortunately, Virazzi's bizarre, pseudostatistical calculation of the probability of IBWO persistence is typical of what passes for science and is accepted in Science and other "top" journals today.
Want proof? Just read this useless letter by David L. Roberts of Kew Gardens, one of very few responses to the IBWO controversy deemed worthy of publication in Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5776/997c?etocquantifying
His statistical test for the probability of the IBWO being extinct is no more useful than Virazzi's loony calculation, and it is sad to contemplate how many useful critiques to the CLO Science paper were rejected to make room for this horseshit.
Waddaya think: is someone who believes there is a 99% chance the Ivory-bill is extant (rather than extinct) less intelligent than someone who believes there is a 5% chance
Define "intelligent."
Assuming you are referring to IQ, the anwer is probably 'no.' Most believers are simply more gullible or, if you want to be kind, more hopeful than those of us who choose to call a spade a spade.
On the other hand, some professed "believers" are likely bad actors who simply get off, for their own reasons, on reciting the Believer's Mantra. It's not unlike the "believers" who have been reporting for the past three years that "in a few months, just wait, things will be just fine in Iraq!"
Waddaya think: is someone who believes there is a 5% chance less intelligent than someone like Tom, Amy or John who believes there is a 0% chance?
Let's put it this way: I would never bet $10 that a living IBWO is going to be documented within, say, the next year. But a person who thought there was a 5% chance might throw $10 away if they thought they could get a 20-fold return on their investment.
Is placing that $10 bet more intelligent than keeping the $10?
As the statistical probability
of these events all occurring is
calculated, you approach a 99.999%
chance that the field observers have
located one or more Ivory-billed
Woodpeckers.
Not true, unless you can calculate the probability of each individual item in the list. So let's look at the items on the list.
Since wingbeat frequency, adhesion data, and hole data have little or no baseline data for IBWO, how can you calculate probability? Answer: You can't. This is faith-based ID.
"Hundreds of audio datapoints" are meaningless unless they both exactly match IBWO and do not match any other known sounds. In this, the Auburn data falls flat. If they had a closely occurring string of "kent" calls that closely matched known recordings (and they don't), the probability would be higher. And counter-calling? One note followed by one other note nearby? Useless without a series (plus the sonograms have to match known IBWO).
We know that the general probability of a poor woodpecker video being IBWO is miniscule. You are vastly more likely to get poor videos of Pileateds. When the video shows multiple features of PIWO (Luneau) or no features unique to IBWO (Fishcrow), it's even worse. So this one can be written off as very low probability.
That leaves sightings by individuals, virtually all of whom were primed to see an IBWO and virtually all of whom saw the bird for at most a few seconds. Yeah, the probability that they were all mistaken is very low on that one ... not.
So the sum total probability that IBWO was seen is, actually, pretty low, at least when "judged in its entirety".
As the statistical probability
of these events all occurring is
calculated, you approach a 99.999%
chance that the field observers have located one or more Ivory billed Woodpeckers.
According to this logic, the US government should be investing billions of dollars on an effort to capture extraterrestrial life forms on earth before they abduct any more citizens.
Ironically, if the US government publicized it, they'd find many many more diehard supporters for such a plan then they would for a plan to find a living IBWO.
is someone who believes there is a 99% chance the Ivory-bill is extant less intelligent than someone who believes there is a 5% chance, and is someone who believes there is a 5% chance less intelligent than someone like Tom, Amy or John who believes there is a 0% chance?
Yes and Yes. Anymore questions?
Sounds like a classic case of “Gambler’s Fallacy”. This person needs to take an undergraduate course in Probability. Casino owners love this type of logic.
Disregard all previous kudos which I have directed toward Yankee birders.
This Virazzi guy makes even Cletus look brilliant.
"Yes and Yes. Anymore questions?"
Any EVIDENCE?
I finally got around to reading that. What a hoot. And you know the "Newsletter of the Monmouth County Audubon Society" USED to be such a rigorous publication. ;-)
Comparing the Cuban sightings to the USA sigthings is ludicrous. THERE IS NO PILEATED IN CUBA!! Idiot! Bark adhesion? Do we have known IBWO scaled trees to compare to? Wow, what a load of crap that article was.
"Any EVIDENCE?"
Yes, you are the evidence that stupidity is still alive and well. Proving, once again, that the IBWO is extinct.
"Yes, you are the evidence that stupidity is still alive and well. Proving, once again, that the IBWO is extinct."
How sophisticated! Am I supposed to believe that people like you are the true guardians of science?
"Am I supposed to believe that people like you are the true guardians of science?"
Oh, sorry, what I meant to say is that you are the exception that proves the rule. In other words, the IBWO must be extinct because stupid people like you think that it lives.
Did I clear that up for you?
"Oh, sorry, what I meant to say is that you are the exception that proves the rule. In other words, the IBWO must be extinct because stupid people like you think that it lives."
"Did I clear that up for you?"
No, because I don't think it lives. Nor do I think it's dead. I DON'T KNOW whether it's dead or alive! I happen to average 135 on IQ tests, so if you still consider that proof that I'm stupider than you because I don't have as strong an opinion as you do, your intelligence is...interesting.
No, because I don't think it lives. Nor do I think it's dead. I DON'T KNOW whether it's dead or alive!
ZOMBIE WOODPECKERS!!!!!!!!
Hide your drumsticks!!!!
I happen to average 135 on IQ tests
Who in the world would take more than one IQ test and why would one do that after they are administered in elementary school?
And please don't assume that doing well on IQ tests means anything more than that you can do well on IQ tests.
Have you ever read anything about Mensa social gatherings. Great article a few years back about someone who attended a number of Mensa meetings and parties. Found that they spend most of their time talking about their IQ test scores.
Obvious parallels with listers who think a large life list and the correct optics can substitute for the lack of a personality.
They don't.
I think what we have here are two very different approaches to assessing evidence.
The believers, like Fred, state that if there's enough evidence that is (or might be) suggestive of IBWO and can't be explained, it rises to an actionable level of proof. By "actionable", I mean it's worth asking for gov't funds, raising private funds, closing access to some areas, blocking projects, etc. Quantity makes up for lack of quality.
Skeptics, like me, say that evidence must stand on its own to be actionable. Quality is everything.
If taking action on the IBWO had zero impact on other people, projects, and the veracity of future claims (I believe there have been posts on this blog already that show anti-conservationists using it as a hammer), I'd say go for it as you long you make it clear that the ALL of the evidence is still highly debated. But the fact is that the actions taken don't occur in a vaccuum, so I must disagree with Fred's viewpoint that it's better to act as if the birds are definitely there (and there and there and...).
Does that make me more or less intelligent?
Why is it so important to you that we have to be 100% certain the Ivory-bill is extinct? In science we often can be 100% certain (e.g., gravity) but in vast realms of science we simply live with uncertainty. Ever hear of a guy named Heisenberg?
If you're 100% the Ivory-bill is extinct, are you 100% certain that global warming is caused by humans? Or that the extinction of the mammal megafauna during the Pleistocene was caused by humans? Or that dinosaurs were warm-blooded? Or that you know who you father is? If you think you're 100% certain you know who your father is, think again. Not even a genetics test can guarantee with 100% probability who your father is--or, if you're a father, that you're the father of the children you care for (but of course with a high enough probability to be confident).
Statistical tests are routinely used by scientists to make inferences, yet rarely is probability equal to 0 or 1. Uncertainty is something scientists accept and live with.
People vary in their strength of opinions. Some are very opinionated, others are not. Some are highly gullible, others are highly skeptical. I haven't delved into the psychological literature, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are studies suggesting that scientists do not differ from the general public in their degree of forming opinions and in their degree of gullibility or skepticism. After all, scientists are human.
We all have inherent biases. We view the world through filters. If you think YOU don't, consider it one of your biases.
Furthermore, I would not be surprised if there is no correlation whatsoever between intelligence (measured by IQ) and the degree of forming opinions or in the degree of gullibility or skpeticism.
I happen to average 135 on IQ tests
Hmmm....I see I'm still not getting through to you. Let me try again.
Remember when you were in statistics class and your professor was talking about the importance of sampling bias? Remember how you didn't get it and just decided that math was just a little too tough for you?
Well, that's what I mean. You are a bad sample. Now do you understand?
To paraphrase the grumpy old lady from the hamburger commercial, "Where's the bird?"
Post a Comment