Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
Bicycles Can End Bad Weather21 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
17 comments:
Someday when I grow up and find the Ivory-billed Woodpecker which is my young life's dream and only ambition in life, you Skeptics will all be sorry.
It has become popular to try to out-skeptic everyone else, but let's not forget that Jerome Jackson was publicly skeptical of Cornell's claims from very early on, and put his name on the line when most of us were lurking in the shadows. All of us hope for things that will never happen. Dr. Jackson has not confused hope with facts.
Another thing we skeptics might consider: there are numerous people out there right now who are trying to figure out how to back away from their sightings/rediscovery claims. That would be a mighty tough thing to do because right or wrong most of these people really did believe the bird had been found. Personally, I think the important thing is for the truth to be told, and the truth is that the Ivory-bill hasn't been rediscovered. Forgive the expression, but it might be wise to not "crow" too loudly when Believers admit they were wrong. Crowing will only discourage them from admitting they erred.
Crowing will only discourage them from admitting they erred.
Oh, boo hoo, you're breaking my heart. Anyone that hasn't recanted already is not likely to. Like Soggy Bill they can just rationalize and rationalize forever.
And they will.
No, I'm afraid it's pretty much going to be a great big,
I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!
If you want to see me gloat
Just apologize and say this quote
"I was wrong, as wrong can be
That wasn't Ivory Bill in the tree
I beg that Skeptics forgive me
Clearly I lied about what I see
My budget was a spending spree
That I charged the Feds with glee
To my credit, I gave no guarantee
But still I promise to give back my degree”
Right, so we skeptics are supposed to play it cool as the believers unravel, even though we were accused of sour grapes and I lost count of how many TB 's proclaimed "you'll be sorry" or "you just wait" or "you skeptics aren't invited to the celebration when proof is presented." Fortunately for the TBs, some of us skeptics will never have the option of being publicly obnoxious. I have no problem taking the high road with these emotionally challenged imbeciles who failed Bird ID 101, but there should certainly be some negative consequences for the ringleaders, starting with their retraction of the Science rediscovery paper and refunds of book royalties.....
"let's not forget that Jerome Jackson was publicly skeptical of Cornell's claims from very early on...Dr. Jackson has not confused hope with facts."
Yes, but his misplaced hope inspired and confused many a TB.
"there are numerous people out there right now who are trying to figure out how to back away from their sightings/rediscovery claims."
Just because they should have admitted defeat long ago doesn't mean they will anytime soon.
"That would be a mighty tough thing to do"
It's always hard to apologize for wasting $10 million dollars while making a mockery of a scientific field and related pastime.
"I think the important thing is for the truth to be told"
It has been, a long time ago. We skeptics just don't have as effective publicists.
"when Believers admit they were wrong."
wishful thinking
"Crowing will only discourage them from admitting they erred."
Why should we second-guess the psychology of unapologetic stringers?
"there are numerous people out there right now who are trying to figure out how to back away from their sightings/rediscovery claims."
With a statement like that, you should start naming names if you have proof and are so sure of yourself ... I doubt there are NUMEROUS PEOPLE out there with that claim at all ... It's wishful thinking on your part, just to tickle your own and every 'skeptics' fancy ...
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the word skeptic or skepticism means: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object ..
I think those of you who call yourselves skeptics, should be known as "NON-BELIEVERS" ... period! I think if a crystal clear photograph and/or documented video evidence of the IBWO's existence was presented and hit you in the face, you would still not believe it. Hence, the words 'attitude of doubt' are not in your 'skeptical' vocabulary ...
So, I believe this blog should be renamed Ivory-bill NON-BELIEVERS. Most of you put true skeptics to shame ...
"there are numerous people out there right now who are trying to figure out how to back away from their sightings/rediscovery claims."
With a statement like that, you should start naming names if you have proof and are so sure of yourself ...
One quick example, found on this blog:
Name, John Fitzpatrick, Cornell:
"I've been accused of being a Bigfoot searcher," Fitzpatrick said, referring to the mythical beast of American folklore. "I just believe that it is a very important priority for us to search all of the places where this bird may be hanging on, and once and for all find out where they still exist, if they do."
If.
I doubt there are NUMEROUS PEOPLE out there with that claim at all ... It's wishful thinking on your part, just to tickle your own and every 'skeptics' fancy ...
Are you actually following what's going on? "Belief" is plummeting. Websites, including Cornell's, are being rewritten downplaying the "rediscovery."
If you think there isn't damage control being discussed right now, you are the one engaged in wishful thinking.
I think if a crystal clear photograph and/or documented video evidence of the IBWO's existence was presented and hit you in the face, you would still not believe it.
That tired argument again?
Once again, most of us "believed," more or less, when the Cornell announcement was made. It was Cornell, right? They had a video, right? It wasn't until we saw the evidence that our faith began to wane, and the more we looked the more it slid.
Your "you wouldn't believe a crystal clear video" argument is baloney, to put it politely. It's an excuse, and a very poor one at that, made by believers trying to relieve themselves of the responsibility to actually provide the type of proof that would have been produced long ago if the bird actually lived.
On one point you are correct, speaking for myself. I was a skeptic, now I am a non-believer. The same holds true for Bigfoot for me. In either case it would be possible to convince me, but it will take a lot more than a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and fuzzy photos.
"I think if a crystal clear photograph and/or documented video evidence of the IBWO's existence was presented and hit you in the face, you would still not believe it."
Don't you TBs (including self-styled true skeptics) ever get tired of these absurd cliches? If you're going to say something so stupid and so entirely without basis at least try to be original or funny.
"Hence, the words 'attitude of doubt' are not in your 'skeptical' vocabulary ..."
We have plenty of doubt. For example, we doubt that you or anyone else will ever produce the magic photo that might hypothetically shame us.
"Most of you put true skeptics to shame ..."
All of the credible evidence is on our side, so why should we be ashamed?
There is nothing shameful about being correct.
you monikered 2 missed their point entirely (at least I think);
the person was saying that you are not skeptics at all, but rather convinced.
"skeptic" indicates some sort of uncertainty about a subject.
this is why they say you "put true skeptics to shame".
you are not that.
you are bearing a title which you have no claim to.
come on over to my side and wear the title non-believer with pride;o)
k
you monikered 2 missed their point entirely (at least I think);
the person was saying that you are not skeptics at all, but rather convinced.
Yes, I see.
I think the force of the term "skeptic" as applied to this phenomenon has become diluted.
Perhaps better terms would be: believers, hopers, and extinctionists.
I believe that species of living organism can become extinct and some of them already have. I believe the IBWO is in the latter category. I don't hope that I'm wrong. Rather, I know that I'm right.
I feel the same way about the Great Auk, for the same reasons.
I'm an extinctionist because I believe that extinction happens and it's okay to admit it.
"you monikered 2 missed their point entirely"
No, I understood their point instantly and thought it foolish and redundant, as it has been made over and over again on this and other blogs. The mocking phrase "self-styled true skeptics" in my response should have made it obvious what I think of believers falsely claiming sole ownership of the skeptic title.
"the person was saying that you are not skeptics at all, but rather convinced."
You don't have to be indecisive to be a skeptic. In cases where the evidence or lack thereof is clear skeptical methods can lead you quickly to a non-believing conclusion.
""skeptic" indicates some sort of uncertainty about a subject."
This is your fundamental misunderstanding. A skeptic is one who engages in skeptical methods of inquiry, not one who is too foolish, uninformed, or deferential to reach any conclusion after years of study.
"this is why they say you "put true skeptics to shame"."
...and why we said that we have no reason to be ashamed. Maybe if your reading comprehension skills improved you TBs would not be so confused about large woodpeckers.
"you are bearing a title which you have no claim to."
We bear a title which certain annoying and ignorant people are trying to steal now that their believer charade seems to be on its last legs.
"come on over to my side and wear the title non-believer with pride;o)"
We are skeptics AND non-believers and will continue to wear BOTH titles proudly.
Instead of "skeptic" or "non-believer" or whatever, how about "objective conservative thinkers." Rare bird committees don't operate on "hope" or "wanting to believe" that a bird is correctly identified. The burden of proof is on the observer(s), and the "record committee of public opinion" (of records-committee-level birders) appears to be leaning heavily towards rejecting the recent "clusters of evidence" from Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida. For the Luneau video in particular, if a high percentage of decent birders can look at it and come to the conclusion that it's a normal Pileated, then the record is effectively REJECTED; it's not irrefutable proof-of-life and without it all the other sight and sound encounters dissolve. End of story. Meanwhile, we patiently await new evidence to objectively review. Bring it on, show me the money, put up or shut up....
Aliens, bigfoot, nessie, etc. have never been proven to exist at all. Elvis Presley existed but we know that he's extinct (which makes you wonder what was going through the CLO heads when they named the AR bird "Elvis".....). We know that IBWOs did actually exist up until 60 years ago and that they were cool birds, and this is the only thing that the crows, TB's et al. have going for them. Note that I don't automatically lump the crows and TBs, which is because I still haven't figured out if all the crows are genuine believers or are just manipulating the believers for their own fame and glory.
Elvis Presley existed but we know that he's extinct
That's not scientific. The probability of Elvis being alive is very low, but you don't really know that he's extinct because you can't prove a negative.
/Tim Jackson-esque idiocy off
Yes, proving a negative is difficult, especially when you are trying to prove a negative that's based on a false positive. Uh-oh, my brain just got scrambled..
Post a Comment