Friday Funny: MAD SCIAM MAGAZINE
49 minutes ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
Michael Mann Hurricane Update5 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
10 comments:
And he's planning to publish this in 'Birding'? A biased, poorly designed survey with loaded questions. Another attempt to destroy science in the name of being right about the IBWO. He should be ashamed of himself.
As I understand it, the purpose of this survey was to guage public opinion on the "believability" of the evidence presented for the continued existence of IBWOs. I suggest we reserve judgement on Floyd Hayes's motives and the adequacy of his survey design until we have had a chance to read the published results.
An "attempt to destroy science?" A cynical view indeed! Geez...
Did the questions allow for people to say that there is a possibility that it exists, but that the evidence to date doesn't show that?
Did the questions allow for people to say that there is a possibility that it exists, but that the evidence to date doesn't show that?
I think that question was on page 2 of the poll, underneath the question about the possibility of Bizarro IBWOs living in alternative universes.
Did the questions allow for people to say that www.fishcrow.com is a giant practical joke by the finest prankster of all time?
Did the questions allow for people to say that www.fishcrow.com is a giant practical joke by the finest prankster of all time?
You are still my hero, dude!
Am I missing something? The respondents of the Floyd Hayes poll were more skeptical of the Luneau video than those of the Tom Nelson poll (9% vs 14% definitely not IBWO). Where's the bias? And why is this an "attempt to destroy science"? Somebody pleeeease enlighten me!
METHINKS II
Methinks II, it's actually 10%--not 9%--who thought the IBWO was legit. And Cynically yours, do you really think the believers are pleased that only 10% believe the Luneau video is legit, and only 21% believe the IBWO exists? As I recall the potential answers to the questions were worded something like 'definitely', 'probably', 'possibly', 'probably not' and 'definitely not'. Now where’s the bias in those kinds of answers? How would you improve on them to make them more 'scientific'? Actually my faith in birders and ornithologists is now restored. It appears the vast majority have enough common sense to not jump to conclusions until more searches are conducted while two radical but fortunately small fundamentalist groups emulate the well-known conflicts of larger fundamentalist groups.
Birding is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so the results published there should not be taken as "scientific" in that way and will in no way "destroy science."
Post a Comment