Martjan has a Ph.D. and an M.S. from the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.However, as of the '06-'07 search season, he's no longer completed his Ph.D.:
Martjan has an M.S. from the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and has nearly completed his Ph.D. there.
Posts
13 comments:
What does that have to do with Ivory-billed Woodpeckers?
It's just another small example of "sloppy" information handling by Lammertink/Cornell.
What does that have to do with Ivory-billed Woodpeckers?
It seems pretty obvious what this has to do with IBWO. What is more of a mystery to me is what aberrant Pileateds, blobs on branches, fawn bleats, scalings and mechanical kents have to do with the IBWO.
In fact the editor of SCIENCE should have asked this question when he got the Fitzcrow et al. manuscript.
"Thank you for your submission to SCIENCE. The reviewers of your manuscript believe it can be published with only minor modifications but a few wonder what it has to do with the Ivory-billed Woodpeckers."
i've heard that within the AAAS that people are talking about Kenedy really dropping the ball on the paper ... he knows they screwed it up but the fact that the peer review process for the paper was handled by the book review editor for the magazine is going something that the staff feels should be talked about more openly than they have.
I got this off Cornell's site today:
POPULATION STATUS
Species likely extinct in both the U.S. and Cuba.
Got to the below page, then click on Ivory-Billed and then Populations.
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu
That seems a little sloppy to me.
Inflation of credentials is easily understandable in a profession where status is more dependent on degrees received than on actual achievements. More than a decade ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed piece entitled "Is There a Doctor in the House", in which the author argued that the less rigorous the academic field, the more likely its members call themselves "Doctor". Within the leading universities, biology is generally considered to reside at or near the bottom of the scientific disciplines in rigor and prestige -- and that's typically molecular biology, which is considerably more rigorous than field biology. Those lacking aptitude in mathematics often wind up in biology instead of physics or computer science, for example.
The hypothesis of the author can be confirmed by attending any ornithological meeting, where one meets numerous unknown and unimpressive individuals who introduce themselves as "Doctor". Anyone with any sort of doctorate has superior status in the profession to the most outstanding non-graduates, such as the late Ted Parker -- who could never land a job with the prestige, pay and benefits enjoyed by the Doctors of the Ivory-bill Hoax.
Eugene Eisenmann became a full-time ornithologist at about age 50 after practicing law at a large New York firm for many years. Despite his tremendous, self taught, expertise on Neotropical birds (and almost anything else that you though you knew something about), he was accorded inadequate respect by ornithologists due to his lack of a doctorate. However, in the 1960s, most law schools changed the degree awarded to graduates from the LLB to the JD. Harvard Law School mailed JD degrees to all its living graduates, including Gene, who subsequently was known in the profession as Dr. Eisenmann. Gene used to advise students not to go into ornithology unless they were prepared to get a doctorate, but that the nature of the doctorate didn't matter so much, eg, the Yale School of Forestry would admit applicants with undergraduate degrees in the liberal arts.
Fitzpatrick received the Eisenmann Medal from the Linnaean Society of New York several years ago. WorldTwitch sometimes covers the Eisenmann Medal honoree (eg, Bob Ridgely, Bill Clark) but skipped this one due to the perceived lack of suitability of the recipient -- and that was before the Ivorybill Hoax.
John Wall
WorldTwitch - Finding Rare Birds Around the World
John,
Generally speaking, molecular biologists are inept at experimental design and statistical analysis and seldom frame their findings within a holistic, meaningful context. Where do you get the notion the discipline is "considerably more rigorous than field biology"? Ecologists, behaviorists, and others (including systematists, who do use molecular tools often) who work in the field frequently back their findings with solid statistical analyses. Many develop mathematical models to make testable predictions. Most of the DNA jockeys I'm familiar with do cookbook science devoid of any mathematical wizardry. Some years ago (ca. 1995), Money magazine published the rankings of 200 jobs, based on income, job security, job satisfaction, and (yes) prestige. Number 200 was migrant farm worker (any surprise?) Number 1 was biologist (say what?).
Many PhDs are much less pretentious than you assert. I've also known many individuals lacking doctorates who are as pompous as anyone else I've ever met.
Having read your comments, I sincerely question your own judgement...and credentials.
Generally speaking, molecular biologists are inept at experimental design and statistical analysis and seldom frame their findings within a holistic, meaningful context.
Well, in part that's because it's *molecular* biology. A reductionist approach to problem-solving is implicit in the name of the field.
But I think your allegation that molecular biologists are inept at experimental design is just bizarre. Many of the most elegant experiments in 20th century science were conducted by molecular biologists.
Where do you get the notion the discipline is "considerably more rigorous than field biology"?
Gosh, uh, I ... what blog is this?
Wait, did someone above say that Science Magazine had its book review editor work the peer review for the Fitzpatrick paper in 2005?
Does anyone know if this is true?
Believe me, websites breed sloppiness. On the other hand, you don't expect books in print or yesterdays news to be edited.
My, my, non-ornithologists ranting and raving about professional ornithologists. Keep on twitching, John! You're making lots of friends and earning an enormous amount of respect out there in cyberspace.
Oh, aside from the Ivory-bill pubs, what is about John Fitzpatrick's lengthy list of ornithological pubs that demonstrate his mathematical ineptitude and render him less suitable than either Bob Ridgely or William Clark as a REAL ornithologist?
"The hypothesis of the author can be confirmed by attending any ornithological meeting, where one meets numerous unknown and unimpressive individuals who introduce themselves as "Doctor"."
I've been to many ornithological meetings and don't recall any participants introducing themselves as "Doctor." Furthermore, I don't recall ever seeing the degrees or titles of the authors listed in an ornithological journal, but I routinely see such qualifications listed in medical journals. John, are you still confident your hypothesis is correct?
The Book Review Editor for Science has a PhD in a biological field, I believe paleobiology, and has sat on a rare birds record committee.
Post a Comment