Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy3 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
11 comments:
The last sentence in the main article pretty well sums it up for the vast majority of folks...
"But unless the extraordinary proof
required to resolve the debate is obtained soon, hope will
quickly fade."
If there is nothing in terms of photographic proof in the next couple of months at the outside, interest will be largely gone, and many folks currently sitting on the fence wondering about the bird's existence will wonder no more...
Wow, Hayes and Hayes' article reports somewhat harsh public response to Fishcrow's video. I just checked his site, however, and it looks like the news hasn't reached him yet.
However, look at the bottom of this page on Fishcrow's site:
http://www.fishcrow.com/winter06.html
I don't know Michael DiGeorgio, but I am surprised he's allowed himself to get sucked into this by the 'Crow (especially in what might be considered false evidence by some!). Note the caption above the second photo/painting: "Late that afternoon, I staked out the area and heard three kents that provoked a stern territorial call from a pileated. Witnessing that interaction between the species was every bit as exciting as the sighting."
Sounds to me more like the "kents" were single calls from a Pileated with a typical series given in response... or am I being too simplistic?
My Two Cents
Of course, that last sentence of the main article is also completely speculative and goes beyond the evidence presented in the survey. While perhaps "interesting" (and we all know what that means), I'm not sure the main article adds much to our understanding. Birders with more experience are more skeptical. OK. We already knew that.
I understand that Birding is a popular, not a scientific journal, but this sort of junk belongs on Birforum, not in an ABA publication. If science fails, let’s do a poll of our readers to get to the truth.
What senseless hogwash!
"If science fails, let’s do a poll of our readers to get to the truth."
Tom already did and the self-proclaimed "unscientific" results were virtually the same. So what makes this study "senseless hogwash"? If you think you can do science better, please show us how.
It was the Science paper that was hogwash, not the Birding article. From the beginning, the sociology of the IBWO "rediscovery" has been far more interesting than the science. The Birding article performed a useful service by confirming what we already know about human nature. Many people are far too willing to believe nonsense endorsed by authorities, most prefer not to express a definite opinion on a simple yes or no question when they can remain safely and politely on the fence, and most non-believers don't want to be perceived as atheists. We hardcore IBWO atheists may be few and much-hated, but history, the facts, common sense, and the ongoing lack of credible evidence are on our side.
What IBWO atheist said.
I too am now a flat-out non believer based on the evidence and lack thereof.
Check out today's log entry about the survey from Mike Collins: (http://www.fishcrow.com/winter07.html.
"...the identity of the bird in the Pearl video is as clear as the value of pi to anyone who makes the appropriate effort."
And boy, is this one bitter searcher!:
"...it does provide documentation of the mindlessness of birders and their lack of commitment to important conservation issues."
"The typical birder is apparently too lazy to take a serious look at this data..."
"It's a shame that birders are too lazy to seriously consider the evidence and don't have enough common sense to realize that all the people who claim to have seen this species (it is becoming quite a long list) are not idiots who can't identify a pileated."
"...it's appropriate that the American Birding Association, which represents mindless birders, should have publications, such as Birding and North American Birds, which publish mindless articles."
"...the identity of the bird in the Pearl video is as clear as the value of pi to anyone who makes the appropriate effort."
I thought the true value of pi was a never ending number. It has been calculated to billions of digits, but can't be expressed exactly.
In our world, we use an approximate value to represent pi.
In Mike's world, he uses an approximate value of pileated to represent the Ivory-billed.
"Analyzing a video also takes some basic knowledge and work, but the identity of the bird in the Pearl video is as clear as the value of pi to anyone who makes the appropriate effort."
Sho' nuff: little blackish specks on white. Maybe a fruit fly on the lens?
"The typical birder is apparently too lazy to take a serious look at this data, but what about ornithologists, especially those who have received large grants to research the ivorybill and in whom the public has put a certain amount of trust?"
What about them? We need to take a poll of these ornithologists who have so much public funding... find out if they really believe their own claims or not!
"It's a shame that birders are too lazy to seriously consider the evidence and don't have enough common sense to realize that all the people who claim to have seen this species (it is becoming quite a long list) are not idiots who can't identify a pileated."
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Stop it, you're killing me!
"... Birding couldn't have chosen something with more substance to publish on the ivorybill (e.g., something about observations and data from the field)."
Wow, yeah, I'd love to read something about DOCUMENTED OBSERVATIONS. Too bad they just don't seem to exist. Except in the addled little brain of our beloved Fishcrow.
My Two Cents
I can imagine Tanner's reply when asked about what kind of high tech state of the art photographic equipment he used for the image in Birding of that bird with the gleaming white bill: "Kodak Brownie." Cost me a buck."
Post a Comment