Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
“Impossible Heatwaves”3 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
6 comments:
OT from John Trapp's thoughtful insights -
It is bad enough that we can't see any actual photos of an IBWO but until we do the worst part of the waiting is looking at the "Search" sites and blogs that have actual photos of the searchers.
Do these people think we really care what they look like? Do they think people who visit those sites don't know what someone in the
field looks like? Could anyone who has seen those images identify any of those individuals if they happened to meet them?
Since the pay is probably low or nothing for many of the searchers I realize that one of the few benefits may be the ability to send a "Look Ma. I'm studying an extinct bird" link to the parents. But since many people go to these sites hoping to see at least the likely habitat and signs of the IBWO I suggest the webmasters adopt a rule that for every image of an earnest searcher they post at least one that actually relates to the bird in question. And for images of searchers in camo there should be a 1:3 correction factor.
When the actual image of an IBWO is produced then I think posting pictures of everyone who worked on the search, their families and everyone they ever dated could be presented as part of the celebration. Until that happy (but unlikely) day photodocumentation of the people who have been enticed to participate in this exercise only serves to point out the lack of the really important photo we all are waiting for.
cyberthrush is once again advocating that a big steaming pile of bad "evidence" is more likely to prove the existence of IBWO than not. Take a look at this post.
Here's my proof that he just doesn't get it. To quote cyber, "which is the 'simpler' explanation for all the reported sightings of Ivory-bills over the years, and recordings that seem to match up acoustically to the only IBWO calls on record"
Cyber, the calls DON'T MATCH! They are significantly longer (averaging about double in length, I believe) and the harmonics don't match. Could they be an unknown call of IBWO? Possibly, but that must first be proven. I repeat, THEY DON'T MATCH!
"Do these people think we really care what they look like?"
Who is we? Are those blogs really intended for you? You are acting as though those blogs are somehow the diametrical opposite of this one. Those people are looking for the bird, ergo they are anti-skeptic.
Maybe for these people there is more to life than birds and they want to tell people they know what they are doing. Let them do what they want, and if they make any unsubstantiated claims (I don't see all of them doing this) then deal with them as they come along.
Arrogantly asinine insight as always from Cyberthrush. Here's his take on Occam's Razor:
"Occam's Razor is essentially the idea that, in science, given a choice of multiple explanations one ought to opt for the simplest of the choices."
That is not the essence of Occam's Razor. That is the essence of the True Believer's razor. Hell, that's the essence of the Creationist's Razor - "God did it." Pretty simple.
What Cybertool should have said was,
"Occam's Razor is essentially the idea that, in science, given a choice of multiple explanations one ought to opt for the simplest of the choices, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL."
"Do these people think we really care what they look like?"
It establishes that they are nice, sincere people struggling against the elements, so anyone who criticizes their bad evidence must be mean.
"photodocumentation of the people who have been enticed to participate in this exercise only serves to point out the lack of the really important photo we all are waiting for."
It also proves to potential donors that these nice people are working very hard in the swamp. Why do we need photos when nice-looking people say they've glimpsed the bird and heard tantalizing calls? They look trustworthy, don't they?
"They look trustworthy, don't they?"
If by trustworthy you mean naive then yes they do look that way.
Post a Comment