Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
14 comments:
Nice to see the IBWO controversy get some ink, but overall that article is rather misleading.
The "state of science" is alive and well. Compared to 2004-2005, when intelligent design bozos were in full-putsch mode and our nation's journalists unblinkingly recited creationist scripts, I'd say 2006 is a marked improvement.
I do note that Seth mentions the "controversy" as to whether recent hurricanes were the result of global warming but does not mention the "controversy" as to whether industrial emissions contribute meaningfully to said warming ... an informative omission, perhaps?
I starting to hate the word "magnificent". Why can't they just say something like "big ass pecker".
Why no mention of Amy's bigfoot arguments?
Why no mention of Amy's bigfoot arguments?
I predict that 2007 is going to be a HUGE year for Bigfoot research. Look for a major announcement in June or July.
Tom funny comments on your site about a recent article were relayed to me.
I do appreciate those copy and pasters who must get a wrist spasm at the pivotal moment causing them to truncate whole sentences of others thereby changing the meaning. Please examine your lifestyles to see why you get these frequent wrist spasms.
To the statistician: Its true that dice have no memory and the odds of throwing an eleven are 18 to 1 no matter how many times eleven has just come out in a row. We and most of the world are in agreement here. (I say most in charity because many people do not know that there are 2 ways to make an 11. )
However the odds of throwing 14 elevens in a row before the next 14 rolls start is 18 to the 14th power......quite a differance.
Odds for certain types of IBWO related studies that consist of multiple events and possible data sets should be estimated/calculated before all these events occur not after.
Lets say as of 4/2005 there were no groups of grad students, science students and ornithology students in the US that were claiming to see or hear IBWO in any river system other than in Ar and LA/MS.
What then were the odds on 4/05 of the following occurances reported in two seperate ways,a b:
a) report the odds if there are no IBWOs in the US
b) report the odds if there are ibwos in the US
What were the ~ odds on 4/05 of some group consisting of the collegiate type group described above reporting through reputable scientific channels that they would claim in 2006 14 eyewitness encounters with putative IBWO from 5/06 into 2006 and they produced scores of recordings of double knocks and kents?
In addtion they would present evidence that fell into two seperate size sets of roost/nesting hole diameters while control areas claimed to have only Pileated did not have two size sets. Same for adhesion values. Throw in all of their other evidence also. Also figure into your calculation that no plausible rebuttal in a scientific journal has occured as of 90 days after report release. Fantastic poems and songs don't count....sorry.
Naturally there were in 2005 mulitiple rivers that could of produced these types of reports so any calculation should take into account that many river systems could have the potential to produce these types of reports. That should bring the odds down a bit.
Of course to claim the parenthetical adjustmment you must have some minimal proof that indeed that river(s) had some reputable searchers in it in 2005/06. After all the differance between fiction and reality must hold for skeptics also.
Next Vegas like exercise before any possible occurance is as follows:
What are the odds an ornithologist, scientist or birder will claim after 12/1/06 to have proof of seeing an IBWO pair in the past with another observer and subsequently went back and gathered feathers after a hurricane event knocked down the nest tree?
The feathers were then sent to a reputable establishment and were declared to be IBWO feathers. Also include in the odds that the feathers can be found and verified and all parts of the story can be checked out as true. The exact location of the sighting will not be given to gather evidence.
Again odds if the IBWO exists of this happening vs odds if it doesnt .A? B?
see you in 6 years....or you better just write a poem or joke!!!
Happy Festivus to all since cetainly there is no real proof of Jesus, Moses, Abraham and Mohammed...oh yaa and Buddha.
Odds that desperate scientists will propogate misleading statistics associated with bogus evidence:
100%
"Happy Festivus to all since cetainly there is no real proof of Jesus, Moses, Abraham and Mohammed...oh yaa and Buddha."
Four different temples claim to have the tooth of the Buddha, in China, Taiwan, Ceylon, and Japan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relic_of_the_tooth_of_the_Buddha
Perhaps its time to break ground on Relic of the Feather of the Ivory bill temples in Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida?
What are the odds an ornithologist, scientist or birder will claim after 12/1/06 to have proof of seeing an IBWO pair in the past with another observer and subsequently went back and gathered feathers after a hurricane event knocked down the nest tree?
I dunno. Probably the same as the probability before Cornell's paper that a bunch of credentialed morons would sit in a room, watch some unbelievably crappy video, and decide to shove it down the American public's throat as "evidence" of a living IBWO.
If one had all the facts about the character and honesty of the human beings at CLO, one would have realized that the probability was actually quite high.
There are a lot miserable liars on earth, and a lot of people who are happy to delude themselves and others, especially if it puts money in the bank.
What is the probability that someone somewhere will be milking the IBWO "controversy" bone dry and pretending that IBWO's exist in 2010, and bolstering their claim by reciting their possession of some sort of "expert" credentials?
Answer: one hundred percent.
Anybody want to place a bet that I'm wrong?
Good Gorb, the IBWO atheist and I are tuned up to the demisemitone!
"If one had all the facts about the character and honesty of the human beings at CLO" (per Amy Lester), we would most certainly recognize the superior character and honesty of those who post here...
...we would most certainly recognize the superior character and honesty of those who post here...
And if some of the people who post here are degrading the science, scamming a naïve public and causing a distraction from the real conservation issues as much as the CLO crowd, I hope that someone has started a blog where their conclusions and actions can be discussed.
"I hope that someone has started a blog where their conclusions and actions can be discussed."
The conclusions and actions of skeptics can be discussed right here. Unlike the owners of Birdforum, Ivorybills Live!!!, and the websites of the CLO and friends, Tom generally welcomes dissenting opinions.
I would love to know exactly how skeptics have degrading the science, scammed a naïve public and causing a distraction from the real conservation issues? Please be specific.
Dear IBWO Atheist – in response to yours at 10:21 pm last night: Please read the posts!
An Anon (5:32 pm 12/22) asked what the chances were of someone having a sighting in the past and gathering feathers after a hurricane.
In response Amy Lester (7:28 pm 12/22), asked, with her/his usual tact, what the chances were of a “bunch of credentialed morons” shoving a crappy video “down the American public's throat” and responded to his/her own question by saying “If one had all the facts about the character and honesty of the human beings at CLO, one would have realized that the probability was actually quite high.”
Anon (6:37 pm 12/23) appeared to be upset in a response to Amy and finished their post by saying sarcastically that if the character and honesty of the CLO crowd were known “we would most certainly recognize the superior character and honesty of those who post here...”
I responded (8:22 pm) by saying that if people posting here had in their own work (not referring to their postings here since clearly no one is making money off them) had degraded science, scammed the public and hurt real conservation through needless distractions (i.e. if they had the same character and honesty as the CLO crowd) I hoped that someone somewhere was discussing their conclusions and actions on a blog.
Given that sequence, I have no idea what you are asking in your recent post but I think your confusion may be due to the thread having hypotheticals and sarcasm that were used for the purpose of discussion while sacrificing clarity. Nonetheless, have a good Christmas.
You're right. I got confused by all the hypotheticals and had absolutely no idea what you were trying to say. It really is hard for me to distinguish between the intentionally absurd sarcasm of skeptics and the unintentionally absurd pronouncements of the TBs. The problem is that many attempts at hyperbole posted to this blog have been more reasonable than a typical Birdforum post.
Merry Christmas to you too.
Odds for certain types of IBWO related studies that consist of multiple events and possible data sets should be estimated/calculated before all these events occur not after.
Fred V: The problem that you and others don't seem grasp is that there is almost no baseline data. For example, the Cornell report just found, through the use of remote cameras, that Pileateds created scaling marks larger than thought possible. So anything that is thought might fit IBWO is called evidence of IBWO. There are enormous holes in the evidence that have been discussed there.
So the question is, what are the odds that marginal evidence could be continually skewed towards the desired outcome? Well why don't you read up on WMDs, 9/11 conspiracies, "intelligent design", and (in deference to Amy) Bigfoot and get back to us.
BTW, since you cite evidence from all over the place, what do you think the odds are that IBWOs still exist in 6 different states? How about 4? 3? 2? 1?
Post a Comment