The piece below evidently circulated behind the scenes after the infamous AOU meeting in August '05. I've removed only the signature portion.
----
The AOU’s response to the purported rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
The usual clichés in praise of sound skepticism applied. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Amazing! . . . if true. Or, to quote the venerable David Hume, A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. Yet at the AOU’s 2005 meeting in Santa Barbara, sound skepticism evaded our stalwart organization when it officially embraced claims of the rediscovery of Campephilus principalis, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. We write to take the AOU to task for its foray into faith-based groupthink.
It was not enough to allow a team of qualified ornithologists to present their important claims. Instead, the AOU treaded into the unfamiliar territory of boosterism. We watched in disbelief as the "rediscovery" repeatedly was referred to uncritically, as if there were nothing to discuss. And much fanfare surrounded a plenary session at which "proof of the rediscovery" was presented at length. Apparently to heighten its significance, meetings were recessed for the day and the only item on the calendar was this special public event, at which not a word of caution was heard. In the end it was left to a reporter for The New York Times to ask if evidence presented was definitive or merely suggestive.
We acknowledge that a rebuttal team had planned to share their concerns, but last-minute brinksmanship—referred to in poker terms on National Public Radio's All Things Considered—made the critics fold (to their eventual regret). And so the show went on.
As we exited from the plenary, should we or other skeptics have gone beyond our displeasure and our small discussion groups in the shadows? Probably. But we emphasize the eleventh-hour pullout and cite intimidation in the face of the well-organized media blitz confronting us. Sadly, as a result of this effective blitz, in the meeting’s wake it has become increasingly clear that the media were not being given the whole story and therefore the layperson could not recognize the controversy for what it is: a question of the nature of scientific evidence.
To this end the AOU’s unabashed endorsement widened an already deep gulf between professional (mainly academic) ornithologists and skilled birders. Differences in higher education aside, members of this latter group are precisely those most qualified to assess claims of the Ivory-billed ilk, as this group accounts for most members of national, state, and provincial bird records committees and is most responsible for vetting non-specimen records reported in North American Birds, Western Birds, and regional journals. We know firsthand that within this subset the vast majority never considered the "rediscovery" proven. It would be a rare records committee indeed that would find the Ivory-billed Woodpecker documentation acceptable. Why were these people ignored? Why did North American Birds (59:228–229, 2005) publish an editorial recognizing the uncertainty of the "rediscovery" when the AOU was only sucked along in the wake of the Team Rediscovery machine? Whether or not the existence of one or more Ivory-billed Woodpeckers ultimately is documented beyond the shadow of a doubt (something we all hope for), our point will remain: the AOU publicly proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" in Santa Barbara based on evidence that many AOU members found to be far less than convincing.
In closing, our quarrel is not with those who sounded the alarm of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s “rediscovery,” to say nothing of those sending out solicitations or on national lecture tours. Rather, it is with the AOU’s response to that alarm. Hope and faith are admirable sentiments—we would not want to live in a world without them. It is appropriate that there are places of worship throughout the continent that specialize in such matters. But at a time when science is on the run in the United States, institutions like the AOU must stand firm in the face of efforts to weaken scientific methods or to construct facts around predetermined goals. We hope, dare we say, that in the future the AOU will be sensitive to any appearance of cronyism within its ranks and will stand unwaveringly for the very highest scientific standards.
----
Update: Note that a video of Fitz' '05 plenary address is here.
The Twelve Days of Climate Christmas
3 hours ago
Posts
30 comments:
I hope Mr. Goatee is reading this.
Someone's stolen my moniker again.
The "IBWO atheist" commenting on the Daily Green is obviously fake. I don't use words like
"farknarklin’"
Do you have any idea who composed this? Note the curious British (and distinctly unAmerican) use of the collective noun:
- a rebuttal team had planned to share *their* concerns
- the media *were* not being given the whole story
C'mon, Anon 9:19. Good grammar is not unamerican.
It's encouraging that the AOU has at least some members who see the IBWO farce for what it is. Will they get the courage to confront publicly the intellectual cancer that has been metastacizing for the past two years? Will the tipping point occur in Laramie? Hell, this is better than prime-time TV.
I think the AOU should avoid taking a position on this controversy until Bill Pulliam has published his analysis of the Luneau video in a peer-reviewed journal.
Amen to that Soggy Bill comment.
I was present at the Santa Barbara meeting and the events and interpretation presented in this document are not entirely accurate. The AOU does not endorse the results or conclusions of any paper presented at the meeting. At every meeting, there will be a number of papers presented that will, upon further inspection, replication, etc., turn out to be incorrect in their conclusions. A few will be outright garbage. The meeting provides a forum for the presentation of research results and most submitted abstracts are accepted for presentation without any independent vetting so long as the subject matter is appropriate (i.e., ornithological). Except for the fact that Fitzpatrick's presentation was given a more lengthy evening time slot, there was little else unusual about it. Other sessions were never scheduled for that day; it was a typical open day in the middle of the meeting with scheduled field trips, etc. The AOU has not taken any official position on the rediscovery of IBWO. Indeed, it does not really have any mechanism by which to do so. As is typical, there was a period for public questions and comments following Fitzpatrick's talk. I do not recall the skeptics making any critical points nor asking any substantive questions.
"I was present at the Santa Barbara meeting and the events and interpretation presented in this document are not entirely accurate."
So, uh, which statements in the document are "not entirely accurate"?
RE Anon 3:17's comments, I was there too, and I would overall agree with Anon's playing down of the implication that AOU tacitly was rubber-stamping all the IBWO garbage presented there. However, Anon avoids:
--bringing up how Cornell bluffed out the skeptics going public right before the meeting occurred.
--mentioning how it's almost impossible to ask questions at the end of paper presentations (Q&A bumped if papers go long, which they almost always do)
--mentioning the local committee host's embracing the rediscovery as absolute fact during Fitz's intro at the plenary lecture
--mentioning how Jim Tate was Fitz's high-profile bodyguard at the lecture and was essentially choreographing the whopping three pre-approved questions
--mentioning how any skeptic bold enough to ask an embarrassing question would have been lynched by the intimidating crowd of TB fanatics.
The program for the upcoming AOU meeting in Laramie shows 4 papers being given consecutively on Sat. afternoon in a session chaired by, who else, Geoffrey Hill. The abstract of each of them suggests that their authors believe that IBWO's survive. The next paper slot is "Open". Unless I missed something, no other papers mentioning IBWO’s, directly or otherwise, appear to be scheduled during the meeting.
I doubt this program would pass even Fox News’ test of “Fair and Balanced.”
Anon 3:17 asserts “The AOU has not taken any official position on the rediscovery of IBWO.” Wink-wink.
Anon 11:05 implies that somehow programs of papers at AOU meetings could be choreographed so as to present "fair and balanced coverage." It just doesn't work that way. Unless there is an organized symposium for which someone invites a group of speakers to cover a topic, the papers submitted are simply those that come out of the woodwork spontaneously. The overall program chairperson organizes these spontaneous submissions into sessions that contain papers on related topics, but there is no attempt to solicit other papers presenting alternative views, etc. However, any IBWO skeptic could have submitted an abstract to present a paper at the meeting and there is a virtual certainty that it would have been accepted even if it were nothing more than a data-free diatribe. To think that the AOU is stacking its meetings to favor IBWO believers is a paranoid fantasy.
Do the associations of mammalogists allow bigfoot "scientists" to present papers at their conventions? Do herpetological societies allow Loch Ness Monster "scientists" to present papers at their meetings? Of course they don't.
Then why does the AOU provide a platform for Ivory-bill fraudsters who use the AOU to legitimize their status and support their requests for grant money?
The AOU leadership allowed the organization to be hijacked by the Ivory-bill fraudsters in 2005, and they are allowing pathetic, copycat fraudsters to contaminate the 2007 meeting. Apologies to the members and resignations of the officers and directors responsible for the aiding and abetting the Ivory-billed Woodpecker hoax are in order.
Anon 12:24 reveals some interesting facets of the AOU program:
1. It is participant-selected, like left-right radio call-in shows.
2. Data-free diatribes may pass as scientific papers.
Anon 12:24's characterization of Anon 11:05's final statement, in the psychiatric trade, is known as the Martha Mitchell Effect. But then sarcasm doesn't travel well on the internet.
What exactly does one have to do to submit a paper for presentation at this meeting?
Do I have to be a member?
This letter "circulated behind the scenes" because the authors, of whom I'm one, tended to agree with some of the critiques offered here. I don't believe that the AOU formally choreographed the conference as an unmitigated showcase for Cornell, but it was problematic that the local conference organizers presented the various talks without a grain of skepticism or a nod to the idea that the ballyhooed "rediscovery" could have fatal holes in it. If you watch the linked video, you'll see Stephen Rothstein introduce former AOU President John Fitzpatrick with a rapturous reference to the "wonderful rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker." This tone of reverence and wonder prevailed at all of the IbWo presentations I attended. I wish the local organizers had probed the controversy to some degree, but it's probably unfair to lay this complaint at the feet of any officer of the AOU. I believe that this is the main reason why this letter was not submitted to The Auk for potential publication.
Worse, of course, was Cornell's pre-conference intimidation of those who had planned the main rebuttal. This had the effect of shutting up the rest of us, who merely weren't convinced that Cornell's case had been conclusively made.
Anon at 12:24 pm wrote:
However, any IBWO skeptic could have submitted an abstract to present a paper at the meeting and there is a virtual certainty that it would have been accepted even if it were nothing more than a data-free diatribe.
I don't know that this is true and I doubt that such a half-assed approach would do anything to further one's career in ornithology, with or without eventual vindication. Most of us went to the conference in order to learn all there was to know about the controversy -- including, we had hoped, alternative viewpoints given by people who had studied the issues closely. Once Richard Prum and Mark Robbins pulled out this just wasn't going to happen, at least not in public.
There was not much room for voicing doubts at Dr. Fitzpatrick's concluding presentation, shown in the linked video. It was abundantly clear that Cornell had circled its wagons tightly and that the local organizers were on board. They were going to have their day in the sun. At 41:30 in the video, after describing many of the seemingly solid sight records, Dr. Fitzpatrick states, “These are experienced and careful observers seeing something they had never seen before, all of them having seen dozens to hundreds of Pileateds within the last few days beforehand.” His talk of nearly two hours was peppered with this kind of stuff -- not the sort of presentation that one could effectively rebut during Q & A.
At 1:39:22 in the video watch Fitzpatrick acknowledge Prum, Robbins, Jackson, Bevier, and Patten for adding “scientific spice” to the discussion. I considered this an odd and dismissive way of acknowledging the serious controversy that existed regarding whether Cornell and all of its big-time "partners" were on solid, verifiable footing when triumphantly declaring perhaps the greatest conservation discovery/opportunity in history.
At 1:44:30 the New York Times reporter asks probably as good a question as could have been asked (“conclusive proof or almost-proof?”). Note the condescending chuckle that kicks off Fitzpatrick’s response, which I paraphrase as: "I am convinced by the mountain of evidence I have just presented to you because I'm a scientist capable of believing in things that I have not personally seen. I realize that certain other scientists don't share this capability and I respect that."
In the end, I think that most of us concluded that ample "scientific spice” had already been added to the stew, and that adding more was not going to make it taste any better. The TB's had placed their professional reputations squarely on the line and the truth would come out in the end, one way or the other. People are right to demand solid proof, and I have little faith in all the sightings, noises, images, etc., but I still hope the TB’s get to say “told you so” when it’s all over.
Oh, and we're not British.
People are right to demand solid proof, and I have little faith in all the sightings, noises, images, etc., but I still hope the TB’s get to say “told you so” when it’s all over.
Hate to break the bad news, buddy, but it is "all over" and it's not the TBs who are saying "I told you so."
It's the portion of the population who had no emotional investment in the alleged rediscovery of these birds and who watched the saga unfold just as if someone had reported finding Noah's Ark on Mount Arrarat (which happens every ten years or so).
We're saying "I told you so," and also a bit more than that. We're asking for the sake of the credibility of conservation science, can we put a cork in the stupid "I hope that I'm wrong" garbage?
Can you imagine Watson and Crick publishing their paper on DNA structure and stating, "It looks like the basic question of how this molecule replicates itself has been answered, but we hope that we're wrong and it's really a magical benevolent entity that's responsible"??
Stop the charade.
Basically, it comes back to "faith-based science." Science should be based on skepticism, proof, and repeatability. No matter how many "good papers" the IBWO scientist-believers have on their CVs, their faith-based belief that IBWO's still exist casts a shadow over all their previous and future research. That's becasue we know that they've crossed the line and so how do we know that they haven't "connected the dots" in the past or won't do it again in the future on less controversial projects? How can you take seriously. ornithologists who would attach their names to this current IBWO flareup, in mammalogists who believe in bigfoot, or herpetologists (or whatever the hell nessie is supposed to be) who believe in the Loch Ness Monster? And, same goes for those in charge of publications and organizations who let this "contamination" get publicity. IBWO rediscovery paper sessions and publications in supposedly "peer-reviewed" journals that are obviously based on shaky evidence should not be allowed unless fair and balanced counter viewpoints are presented at the same time.
"Science should be based on skepticism, proof, and repeatability"
A more important consideration is fundability.
Can you imagine Watson and Crick publishing their paper on DNA structure and stating, "It looks like the basic question of how this molecule replicates itself has been answered, but we hope that we're wrong and it's really a magical benevolent entity that's responsible"??
This analogy is strained. You can't prove a negative, so those proclaiming the IbWo definitively extinct are taking on a different kind of task than that of Watson and Crick, who "merely" had to demonstrate how DNA replicates itself.
I have believed from the very beginning that Fitzpatrick et al. failed to prove their case. I also believe that Science, Cornell, the AOU, and many other institutions and individuals harmed their own reputations by publishing and promoting the putative "rediscovery" the way they did. I have no problem with your belief that none of the people who claimed sightings might have been right, but you'll have to explain to me why it's a problem for you that I maintain some faint hope that the species somehow does survive. How exactly is that a "charade" and how does your certainty about something that can't be proven make you better than me?
"those proclaiming the IbWo definitively extinct"
The point is that it is extinct enough to not merit federal funding.
"but you'll have to explain to me why it's a problem for you that I maintain some faint hope that the species somehow does survive"
I suggest you read Candide.
"How exactly is that a "charade" "
It is unsupported by credible evidence and is merely an excercise in smug wishful thinking.
"how does your certainty about something that can't be proven"
It can't be PROVEN but it can be shown to be the only reasonable conclusion for all practical purposes. All of you TBs seem to have skipped Philosophy 101.
"make you better than me?"
That is subjective, but your gratuituous hope doesn't count in your favor.
you'll have to explain to me why it's a problem for you that I maintain some faint hope that the species somehow does survive.
Gladly. First of all, let's be clear: the "problem" is not that you "maintain some faint hope" that the species does survive. I could care less about what fantasies you carry around in your brain. Maybe Jessica Alba will actually take a shower with you someday. Whatever gets you through the night, as the saying goes.
The problem arises when self-identifying "rational" people claim that they are behaving more "scientifically" or "judicially" by hedging their bets as to the non-existence of living IBWOs. Sort of like when you wrote
how does your certainty about something that can't be proven make you better than me?
I never said that I was "better than you." All I said, really, is that my conclusion that living IBWOs are just as likely to exist as Sasquatch or living dodos is (1) more reasonable than any other explanation for the evidence and (2) a scientific fact, resting on ground as firm as the ground that statements such as "the passenger pigeon is extinct" rest on.
The "charade" I'm referring to is the charade that has been acted out for the past 60 years where "credible" people pop up with their bogus claims about living IBWOs and other allegedly "reasonable people" join in a chorus of "this falls short of proof but is still tantalizing blah blah blah blah."
When does it freaking end? For frick's sake, the virus was allowed to get so far out of control that it infected so-called "professional scientists" and "expert birders," who simply refuse to admit the obvious.
The bird is extinct. Why is there such difficulty admitting this? To suggest that the IBWO's extinction can never be a scientific fact because "you can't prove a negative" is simply beyond the pale.
Grow up already. Find some other bird to fetishize.
Find some other bird to fetishize.
That's too funny -- the IbWo is the farthest thing from a "fetish" in my life -- it's barely a blip.
The problem arises when self-identifying "rational" people claim that they are behaving more "scientifically" or "judicially" by hedging their bets as to the non-existence of living IBWOs.
I don't believe that I'm behaving more "scientifically" or "judicially" than you or anyone else who's skeptical about the claims that have been made. As I wrote, "I have no problem with your belief that none of the people who claimed sightings might have been right." I think it's a perfectly legitimate position to take, and quite possibly more legitimate than my own -- I'm far from an expert on the species and have never claimed to be one. Some people who know more about the species hold out no hope, others hold out some faint hope. For now I'll align with the latter group -- maybe one day I'll grow up and be as wise as you.
Grow up already. OK, Pop, but don't try to tell me you don't think you're better than me.
As I wrote, "I have no problem with your belief that none of the people who claimed sightings might have been right."
It's not a belief. It's a fact.
I think it's a perfectly legitimate position to take, and quite possibly more legitimate than my own
I don't know about more "legitimate" but it's vastly more reasonable.
I'm far from an expert on the species and have never claimed to be one.
I've never claimed to be on either.
Some people who know more about the species hold out no hope, others hold out some faint hope.
Sometimes it's cloudy, sometimes it's sunny. Some people are smart, others are dumb.
For now I'll align with the latter group
Welcome to the state of being wrong.
maybe one day I'll grow up and be as wise as you.
Why not make it today? What have you got to lose?
don't try to tell me you don't think you're better than me.
Not better. Just far more reasonable and intelligent in at least one respect. I guarantee you that much. Let me know if you're interested in challenging me on that score, or if you simply wish to continue preaching.
You can't deny that it became necessary, if one wanted to be critical of the evidence, to also sum up your criticism by stating that you hope you are wrong.
One has to admit that this is interesting, think of another high profile scientific controversy where in the factions place such importance on WISHING that they were WRONG! I can't. Maybe the DNA example is a bit unfair, but think of another Scientific argument where one side is compelled to be so deferential to the other.
Copernicus maybe? I'm terribly sorry to inform you his holiness, that the earth orbits the sun??
I mean the fact is that Fitzpatrick was the "POPE" in all this. He had a papal ring and he used it to seal the deal. He brought SCIENCE into this thing. He LED the events.
Look back through the stories, each of the high profile critics, of the cornell paper summarized their position by stating that they "hoped" they were wrong.
I had not known until now, that the original ornothologist critics (Prum, Bevier, Patton and Sibley) were listed by name as "Spice" - in front of their peers at AOU.
What a dismissive and feminizing way to frame your critics.
"The Spice Boys" ...
One has to admit that this is interesting, think of another high profile scientific controversy where in the factions place such importance on WISHING that they were WRONG!
At the risk of pissing off my incredibly brilliant but irritable anonymous friend, I hope the dire global warming predictions fail to pass even more than I hope the IbWo survives. Now I'm going to duck and cover...
I hope the dire global warming predictions fail to pass even more than I hope the IbWo survives.
With the former, at least, there is a theoretical possibility of taking some action to forestall the worst scenarios. Ironically, that action would include refraining from bulldozing forests and wetlands and replacing them with airports, factories, and highways.
The difference between hoping that you are wrong about the IBWO's extinction is that in 2007 it's akin to a nuclear physicist hoping that atomic power will be used only for peace. That train left the station before many of us were born. Pleas for such impossibilities raise obvious questions about the intent of the pleader.
You can't deny that it became necessary, if one wanted to be critical of the evidence, to also sum up your criticism by stating that you hope you are wrong.
Yes. This is the Santa Clause Syndrome. It is NOT popular to find fault with hope, dreams, sentiment, and nostalgia. The great Lord God bird of CLO, risen from the dead, represented good over evil, victory over defeat, life over death, survival over extinction. The story resonated in the hearts of all Americans. School children drew refrigerator door art of IBWOs. All was right with the world, and we rejoiced. It was a wonderful story. And a popular one.
Then the hated skeptics emerged with their unwelcome scientific skepticism, pointing out that the wonderful story was flawed. But they hoped that Santa still lives.
Douglas Yates once said "No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thouroughly discredited".
"The majority of birders and ornithologists [76%] . . . still cling to the hope that the Ivory-bill 'possibly' exists or 'probably' exists" (Birding 39(2):41). Jerome Jackson, in his Auk commentary, said "We should continue to pursue Ivory-billed Woodpeckers across the Southeast, encouraging systematic search efforts in the best habitats available."
Pleas for such impossibilities raise obvious questions about the intent of the pleader.
In light of the numbers, please explain how one's hope for the survival of the IbWo explains anything at all about "the intent of the pleader."
You also suggested that maintaining any level of hope regarding the IbWo's existence makes one "akin to a nuclear physicist hoping that atomic power will be used only for peace." Is your point that widespread hope enables people like Fitz, Hill, and Arvin to rustle up big money for pointless IbWo hunts? Again, I the analogy is obviously strained -- the nuclear physicist would infinitely much more input into his process than some birder harboring generic hope for a species' survival would have into the process by which a focused search for the species would be funded.
Is your point that widespread hope enables people like Fitz, Hill, and Arvin to rustle up big money for pointless IbWo hunts?
My point was that the train left the station a long time ago and there is no hope. "Game Over" as Collinson put it to Pulliam. Yes, animals go extinct. Grown up scientists must learn to accept this fact.
The "widespread hope" you refer to is fueled by the scientist peddlers and "expert birders" we are all familiar with primarily for one purpose: to keep folks interested so that, if need be, they can milk the rubes for $$$$$$ or, somewhat less crassly, get the rubes "excited" about conservation (because it would take too much effort to convince those dumbasses to care otherwise ...?).
The rubes for the most part have no "intent" when they recite the scripts they are handed (about the double-knocks, the wingbeats, the deepness of the swamps, the kent calls, the "sightings"). They simply want to feel the magic. And they have a right to feel the magic on their own time in the privacy of their homes.
Is your point that widespread hope enables people like Fitz, Hill, and Arvin to rustle up big money for pointless IbWo hunts?
Clearly demonstrably true.
Post a Comment