A poster at Birdforum makes an interesting point about Tyler Hicks' 5/27/05 IBWO report here.
Update: A followup post is here, and another is here.
The field notes are here (PDF); Sibley's ID tips are here (PDF).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
emupilot at BirdForum said... We all would love to see indisputable evidence, but the lack of such evidence doesn't mean Hicks is a fraud (since misidentification is not a possibility in this case).
Any birder who would make the statement "misidentification is not a possibility in this case" about a view that the observer himself described as lasting "a millisecond" is a fool. This clown knows absolutely nothing about the pitfalls of identification, yet for some reason feels qualified to expound upon it.
This whole mess just seems to bring out the delusional and the self-appointed experts.
Looks like Hill doesn't know jack about bird misidentification issues either. From an 1/7/07 update he posted here:
"Tyler’s sighting cannot be dismissed as a misidentification. The details reported by Tyler absolutely rule out any other species of bird."
Absolutely? Maybe he should speak with experts in bird identification (a.k.a. his "betters") before pontificating on what is and is not possible. A read of Sibley's Birding Basics would be a good start.
"find it very hard to believe that someone of Tyler Hicks apparent reputation as a birder, describing an IBWO, would make such an error of terminology when describing one of IBWOs diagnostic features"
It is not at all hard to believe that his description is inaccurate. As I've pointed out many times before the full top view he drew in his field sketch is obviously incompatible with his "circumstances of sighting" diagram which shows that he was situated well below and to the side of the bird. If he had actually obtained a full top view how would he have seen the flank at all?
These internal inconsistencies and careless errors like the white-lined "flank" point to incompetence rather than fraud, as fabricated data would surely be of much higher quality.
As for Tyler's supposed great reputation, who had ever heard of this guy before his bogus IBWO claims? To this day none of the truly famous birders among the TBs such as the World Series champions Fitzcrow and Rosencrow has ever claimed an IBWO sighting of his own.
Regardless of the merits of the chosen words on the people and situations on which they are applied, I think it's best to limit the use of such words as "clown," "idiot," "fool," etc. All those words have been applied to we Skeptics, too. It seems obvious the Believers are wrong, but it doesn't make them fools, clowns and liars. We can be right and still be civil.
Pointing out the errors in logic and arguing the evidence directly, without the insults, seems likely to be more effective.
I think it's best to limit the use of such words as "clown," "idiot," "fool," etc.
OK, I'll change my statements. How about instead of saying he is "a fool" I say he is "ignorant" or "naive". Instead of "clown" I could use the word "poseur".
Fool - One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
Clown - A buffoon or jester who entertains by jokes, antics, and tricks in a circus, play, or other presentation.
Liar - One that tells lies.
It is important to be civil but it is also important to be honest. It is not clear to me which of the terms above would be more insulting than accurate when applied to those who saw or are selling the IBWO.
Clearly there have been deficiencies in judgment and understanding. Those providing presentations are entertaining with tricks (i.e. "this frame shows the...."). The toughest one to apply might be liar but the issue there is if one is lying if they have convinced themselves something is true. That is, can a delusional person be a liar?
There is no real sin in being a fool, clown or liar. It is just a bit uncivil when you ask the public to pay you for being one of those (and you are not working in a circus).
Suggestion:
For idiot, clown, or liar, insert "zealot," or "fanatic."
"We can be right and still be civil."
Thank you for expressing your concern.
"It seems obvious the Believers are wrong, but it doesn't make them fools, clowns and liars."
I prefer "morons" and "charlatans" myself. But please feel free to continue offering your advice on how we can avoid offending these morons and clowns. Each one of us is extremely interested in your wisdom because of the huge cash awards that are presented to the Most Civil Blog Commenters every year.
Have a laugh and watch Mark play "guess my views" with himself.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5388849157349597580&postID=1594453769599833330
emupilot at BirdForum said... We all would love to see indisputable evidence, but the lack of such evidence doesn't mean Hicks is a fraud (since misidentification is not a possibility in this case).
Surely, if misidentification isn't a possibility (although it is, of course) then fraud is an even more likely explanation for the sighting of an extinct bird? Emupilot's grasp of reason is like his/her grasp of what is involved in bird identification.
Fyi, re my 1:08 am post, I note that Mark has removed at least three comments in the thread (at least one of which appeared to have been highly edited by Mark) in an attempt to keep his "vision" of the blog uncluttered with annoying comments where he is asked to explain why he is especially "hopeful" that he will find an IBWO at this time of the year.
So much for the "friendly and tolerant" forum Mark bragged about. Maybe it was sarcasm.
Tyler, like Captain Mucus, seems to have "flunked flank"
Post a Comment