Wednesday night, Dr. Fitzpatrick reviewed the evidence for the bird's continued existence. He showed the brief film and analyzed it. The bird in the film certainly looked, to an untrained backyard birder like myself, like an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Perhaps the most telling piece of evidence for me was the analysis of wingbeats that matched exactly with what was known of the wingbeats from the 1940s birds.A related post is here.
“Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
43 minutes ago
Posts
8 comments:
Maybe Fitz doesn't peruse your site or take at face value all facts gleaned from internet sources. Although you frequently slam the review process of SCIENCE, where are the reviewed rebuttals to their wingbeat frequency analyses that you claim have been thoroughly rebutted? Who has published the factual details of the Nolin video? Has anyone described the specifications of the video system used to acquire their images? Why are scientists labeled as frauds when they do not accept as fact Tom Nelson, Methinks, or other non-published claims that contradict their work? Do you really expect to have it both ways, Tom? CLO got away with virtual fraud by publishing via a flawed review system, yet without any review whatsoever you insist that you and others have it all figured out.
In the purist sence of scientific integrity Fitz. et. al. need to provide a reference containing a statistically significant sample for wingbeat frequency. Only then can comparison to that "reference/standard" population be performed.
"Why are scientists labeled as frauds when they do not accept as fact Tom Nelson, Methinks, or other non-published claims that contradict their work?"
Tom et al's views are logical, well-conceived, well-articulated, have long been well-known to TBs like you, including members of the CLO, and are consistent with views well-documented in published sources (e.g., Sibley et al.). Ongoing strenuous attempts to refute Tom's views with credible evidence or valid arguments have proven unsuccessful.
Tom rightly considers this a potential case of fraud, because CLO has long been aware of very serious problems (or at very least potential or perceived problems) with their research, but they still fail to mention these when soliciting funds from naive donors.
Ethical scientists should consider and respect all available information when presenting your findings to the public, even if some of this information is not published or was published in an obscure source. I have a very low opinion of scientists who deliberately dismiss or ignore compelling data or arguments simply because these did not appear in a "top" journal such as Science.
Anonymous #1 is simply appealing to the repeatedly discredited authority of SCIENCE and fails to address any of Tom's substantive arguments. It should be noted that Tom's views have been very extensively commented upon in his blog and in many other places, often by those who are clearly very well-informed about the IBWO tragicomedy, so it is patently false to say that these received no review whatsoever. In fact, they have obviously received more intense and publicly-documented scrutiny than all but a very few peer-reviewed papers.
We insist that his views are essentially correct because his critics have offered feeble substantive rebuttals to his key conclusions or, in the case of anonymous #1, none at all.
"Anonymous #1 is simply appealing to the repeatedly discredited authority of SCIENCE and fails to address any of Tom's substantive arguments. It should be noted that Tom's views have been very extensively commented upon in his blog and in many other places, often by those who are clearly very well-informed about the IBWO tragicomedy, so it is patently false to say that these received no review whatsoever."
Okay...okay...I'm anonymous #1 and I give up...Tom's blog exceeds the credibility authority of SCIENCE. I thought I had something on you arm-chair no-need-to-publish scientists, but I was wrong again.
"I thought I had something on you arm-chair no-need-to-publish scientists, but I was wrong again."
Many contributors to this blog are genuine scientists who publish frequently, as I do, and are well-acquainted with failures of peer review at big journals through first hand experience with arrogant, ill-informed editors and reviewers (like you?).
Anonymous #1, how about reviewing your own submissions before sending them here? "Armchair" has no hyphen.
Tom's blog exceeds the credibility authority of SCIENCE.
The point is that SCIENCE mag's "credible authority" does nothing to remedy the obvious weaknesses of the 2005 IBWO pile o' crap at least as far as literate thoughtful open-eyed educated people are concerned.
As for the script-reciting rubes for whom a clinging "hope" in the IBWO's continued existence is evidently a foundation for their mental health, it's no surprise that they cherish that SCIENCE article like a holy scroll. Probably some have a copy of the cover hung on their wall in a gilded frame. What an awesome gift from the CLO! How long did the high last? It doesn't matter. All that matters is: the paper was worth it. It is a monument, testimony to the highest levels of IBWO research and dedication achieved over the past five decades.
Until it's retracted.
Where's the fraud? According to the commentary, Fritz simply shared his opinion with an Audubon Society group. Are we all committing fraud if we share beliefs or personal convictions with others that do not coincide with "Tom's substantive arguments"? What is wrong with encouraging someone to step forward and *publish* data to refute the SCIENCE paper? And to the "genuine scientist" who publishes frequently and is quick to label others as "ill-informed," maybe a "highchair" (without an apostrophe) would be a suitable euphemism for your ivory-tower pulpit.
"maybe a "highchair" (without an apostrophe) would be a suitable euphemism for your ivory-tower pulpit"
I'd rather make my pronouncements from atop a tower overlooking the swamp forest canopy, where I can obtain full top views of IBWOs, just like the one Tyler Hicks depicted in his "field sketch"
I stand by my assertion that top journals like SCIENCE do not review papers related to systematic biology as seriously as they should. It seems to me that papers on animals are regarded as a light-hearted diversion from serious papers on subjects like physical chemistry that few actually read, are selected for their gee whiz factor rather than their quality, and are frequently sent to irrelevant reviewers trained in more prestigious fields.
Post a Comment