I appreciate the varied viewpoints posted in response to our recent letter in Birding. Still, some criticism is unduly harsh. It took two years for this letter to appear because dealing with the "fallout" of the initial claim is an ongoing process. I wish it were so, but opinions do not change overnight.
In that vein, bear in mind that we could not publish at all until public opinion diminished enough to quell vitriolic backlash. Recall that "believers" seemed to outnumber skeptics manifold in the early stages of this affair. And there was coercion and worse.... I like to think that our rebuttal in Science helped turn the tide, and it is nice to see that there are now many who question the IBWO claims comfortably, without fear of reprisal. That opinion has not swung entirely to "our" side is hardly for lack of effort on our part, let alone our approach or our choice of wording.
Besides, for my part I prefer to keep the debate as civil as possible, meaning we shall not drift into blasting with both barrels in classic talk radio fashion. If we let anyone down in behaving thusly, I can only apologize and encourage you to take up the baton with your own published critiques.
Thanks again to all who shared their thoughts.
-Michael
Bicycles Can End Bad Weather
1 hour ago
Posts
16 comments:
"we could not publish at all until public opinion diminished enough to quell vitriolic backlash."
Were you seriously afraid for your personal safety based on specific threats or were you just timid?
John Wall seems to have survived despite posting a far harsher critique than you were ever likely to consider. Also Jerome Jackson didn't cave in to pressure from James Tate, a member of an administration that endorses torture. What was the basis for your being so very afraid?
"And there was coercion and worse...."
All the more reason to have spoken candidly at the time. At very least please help better document this "coercion and worse" now, especially the "worse", so that those responsible can be appropriately censored for their unethical, unprofessional, and maybe illegal actions.
"it is nice to see that there are now many who question the IBWO claims comfortably, without fear of reprisal."
Timidity in the face of hypothetical reprisals from scary ornithologists and birders is understandable but not admirable.
"That opinion has not swung entirely to "our" side is hardly for lack of effort on our part, let alone our approach or our choice of wording."
Use of "entirely" turns this into an obvious straw man argument like those employed by Cyberthrush. Exact choice of wording is critical, and your overuse of "hope" surely sent a mixed message and confused many who weren't following the story closely.
Note that Patten has the courage to use his real name when publicly writing about the IBWO.
That is indeed admirable
Speaking only for myself, I post with a pseudonym whenever I post on the Internet. It has less to do with fear that someone will take offense to my comments and more to do with a preference for keeping my blogging activities private from current and future employers and/or clients, just as I try to keep many other "visible" aspects of my life private. I like birds but this IBWO business is the extent of my involvement with the "birding world." I don't even have a feeder because I can't deal with the poop.
The anonymity of critics is irrelevant except to the extent it obscures the number of critics. In some ways, it focuses the discussion because it prevents reliance on "credentials." My experience in the context of IBWO pedagogy is that it is the believers -- anonymous believers included -- who tend to claim expertise (e.g., "30 years spent in the eastern woods" blah blah blah).
Those who find unfairness in the anonymity of critics/skeptics should remember that the entire "controversy" is the result of choices by certain folks to focus the public's attention on their personal activities and extraordinary claims. It wasn't anonymous bloggers who started this but, yeah, we are happy to put it to bed.
Power to the people.
Few people have done more work than Mr. Patten and his co-authors towards debunking the "rediscovery."
Recognizing the realities of timing the rebuttal showed good judgment. Writing under his own name took courage. Keeping the debate on as high of a level as possible is wise and is simply the right thing to do.
In my opinion skeptics should focus on the bogus rediscovery claims instead of being hypercritical of other skeptics.
In my opinion skeptics should focus on the bogus rediscovery claims instead of being hypercritical of other skeptics.
[head explodes]
Seriously, I'm glad Patten is skeptical but ibwo atheist's point about the silly "hope" rhetoric remains as valid as ever.
Similarly, the excuse about wanting to avoid a "vitriolic backlash" doesn't really fly. I mean, who cares if some people wig out and accuse you of pooping in the punch bowl? If the facts on your side, then out with them. That's journalism.
Even now stating that the bird is extinct is met with accusations that one is working for a timber company or that one suffers from a personality disorder or (most laughably) that one is making claims "without proof."
Soldier on.
Unnecessarily abrasive honesty does more harm than good in changing people's minds almost every time.
If the goal is getting people to see the light, and I think that should be the goal, then it's important to recognize the reality of how people react to different ways of expressing the truth.
In my opinion it takes a lot more courage to write a paper under your own name using carefully selected language than it does to tell the brutal truth anonymously in the comment section of a blog, and that applies to me, too.
Unnecessarily abrasive honesty does more harm than good in changing people's minds almost every time.
Prove it.
The term "unnecessarily" begs the question, of course, so we'll ignore it.
But prove that "abrasive honesty" does more harm than good "almost every time."
We're not talking about educating children so they grow up without damaged egos. We're talking about educating full-grown adults who should -- and probably do -- know better but who persist in perpetuating myth because they believe that the benefits of doing so outweigh the harm.
To the extent adults like this are led to believe that such behavior will lead merely to gentle nudging by those who see what they are up to, they will continue on just as before.
C'mon. Imagine how this story would have played out without the "abrasive honesty" of Internet skeptics to keep these jokers in line.
it's important to recognize the reality of how people react to different ways of expressing the truth
What is the reality? I think the reality is that different people react in different ways to different expressions of the truth depending on the context. In other words, asserting that there is one "proven" way to convince people of a fact is mere pablum.
it takes a lot more courage to write a paper under your own name using carefully selected language than it does to tell the brutal truth anonymously in the comment section of a blog
I have no idea how to measure "courage" in this context in the absence of a genuine risk of harmful blowback (e.g., loss of employment for expressing an unpopular fact).
Would any ornithologist or "expert birder" have harmed his or her reputation by immediately denouncing the Science paper as worthless garbage? Again, if that's the case, then ornithology has a problem because the fact is that I saw right through the garbage from the beginning and I had never even heard of a pileated woodpecker before I saw that Science paper.
Do you not get it? After this recent article in Science are there STILL going to be "serious" people debating pixels, double-knocks, "kent-like calls", large roost holes and whatever?
When does the madness stop? I mean, I can accept that there will always be hacks on the Internet but Fitzcrow and Hillcrow deserve every ounce of ridicule that comes their way. As scientists, their behavior (i.e., their public statements) is simply not defensible. I think they know this but, as is usually the case in these matters, they will take their sweet time "coming around" and eventually they will write their memoirs about how they were mistaken but oh, what a profound intellectual journey it was for them.
Blech.
"bear in mind that we could not publish at all until public opinion diminished enough to quell vitriolic backlash"
It still isn't at all clear to me why you "could not"
We are critical not because you didn't express the extreme skeptic opinion and convince everyone, but because we sensed that you weren't being entirely candid, and you verified this by admitting to modifying and suppressing your own opinions in response to idle threats.
Maintaining silence out of fear of vitriolic backlash or worse would be more understandable if your adversaries were a gangsta rap crew or a Mafia family instead of a bunch of credulous birders, some extremely self-important ornithologists, and some pathetic public officials.
I agree with invisible bird that the entire IBWO debate has placed far too much emphasis on the celebrity, supposedly relevant credentials and putative expertise, and nice versus nice personality of the commentators and not enough on the quality of their insights and accuracy of their predictions.
I don't have to prove that people are more likely to change others point of view if the points are made in a civil manner without angering the listeners. It's common sense. See "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar." That's the way it is and wishing it away or calling it cowardice doesn't change human nature, just like wishing the Ivory-bill were alive doesn't make it so.
On the skeptical papers, it's also common sense that it takes more courage to take a public stand under your own name than sniping at the authors of those papers anonymously. All sane people in the real world "pull punches" to some degree when it comes to expressing opinions because what you say and how you say it has consequences. That's presumably why some of us post anonymously or under pseudonyms (fake names.)
So how about focusing on the statements of people still selling this pile of garbage rather than those that have actually published skeptical papers?
It's common sense. See "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar."
Yeah, I figured you'd say something along those lines. Call me unpersuaded. Maybe you should use more honey? ;)
It's important to recognize that some of us (myself included) are not interested in educating hopelessly clueless people or selling something to people who are not interested in facts. That's for advertisers and grade school teachers.
This "controversy" was never about the IBWO. It's about debunking not-so-cleverly practiced pseudoscience. The unfortunate facts were set forth plainly and in a "civilized" fashion numerous times many moons ago. The response to that forgiving and helping hand was more of the same chicanery, dust-kicking, goalpost moving, hand-waving, and of course more bogus "sightings."
The posture of the story remains interesting. On one hand, the bogus rediscovery was promoted heavily and was a minor worldwide sensation. On the other hand, woodpeckers and southern swamps are not very relevant to most people.
Can you imagine the same facts in the context of, say, a bogus but highly promoted and sensationalized claim about a drug that cured AIDS? With lead authors "acting" like the data was good enough and trying to make deals with critics?
I think you'd see quite a bit more vinegar. Would that be wrong?
To IBWO Athiest and Invisible Bird,
Y'all need to chill (to use a popular phrase). We're all on the same side here. It just so happens that those who have made efforts to write more than simply annonymous blog posts have used their real names, and have had to weather some pretty stiff criticism from the ornithological community and general public.
You may scoff at this, but are you professional ornithologists or birders? Have you had to compete for grant money or pass a proposal by a committee that contains either someone who is among the various TBs in the ornithological community and risked having it turned down because you are a vocal skeptic? No? Well, perhaps once your source of income and research funding is threatened by your beliefs (well-founded as they are), you will realize that constructing your critical remarks with as much grace as possible (and without making them unnecessarily harsh) is a far better road to take to try to sway the community and the public to our side of the argument.
From the recent Science piece, you can see that Prum and Robbins were bamboozled by CLO, but are hardly "peddlers" as you and others suggested in blog comments a week or so ago. Similarly, Sibley et al (and yet other would-be public skeptics) have had to deal with some remarkable resistance from CLO, friends of CLO, etc., in order to get their various papers and letters into print. THEY, however, have papers and letters in print. Once I see "IBWO Athiest" or "Invisible bird" as the bylines to other critiques, I will take the following back: you guys need to put up or shut up!
My Two Cents
"All sane people in the real world "pull punches" to some degree"
Do you routinely "pull punches" in response to "coercion and worse" and in "fear of reprisal"?
I don't!
If such serious threats were really made in an attempt to silence skeptical views then the birding/ornithology/
conservation world is in worse shape than even we skeptics thought and this should be discussed and investigated.
If, on the other hand, the threats were overblown and used as an excuse for lack of timely and decisive response to the IBWO fiasco by celebrity birders and ornithologists then we have every right to be disappointed.
Important points should of course be made in a civil manner if possible but they should be made, even if this makes certain self-important and threatening people very angry.
My Two Cents,
You need to take your own advice.
"have had to weather some pretty stiff criticism from the ornithological community and general public."
There is a difference between stiff criticism and "coercion and worse" which I think is important but it seems you do not.
"Have you had to compete for grant money"
yes, but not in the field of ornithology, thank God. I try to be civil with my colleagues but don't defer to bullies or fools. If I found my field to be as inbred as ornithology seems to be I would look for alternative funding sources.
"From the recent Science piece, you can see that Prum and Robbins were bamboozled by CLO, but are hardly "peddlers" as you and others"
I never called them peddlers. Although I am in general agreement with invisible bird et al. we have our own distinct opinions and ways of phrasing things.
"Similarly, Sibley et al (and yet other would-be public skeptics) have had to deal with some remarkable resistance from CLO, friends of CLO, etc., in order to get their various papers and letters into print."
If cronyism and extortion are so pervasive in ornithology that everyone has to defer to a few self-important peddlers of bad cryptozoology then this field has very serious problems beyond the usual need to be civil so as to obtain favorable grant reviews.
anon 12:57: "how about focusing on the statements of people still selling this pile of garbage rather than those that have actually published skeptical papers?"
How about focusing on bullying by the people still selling this pile of garbage that delayed and otherwise compromised the actually published skeptical papers?
From the recent Science piece, you can see that Prum and Robbins were bamboozled by CLO, but are hardly "peddlers" as you and others suggested in blog comments a week or so ago
So, uh, how were Prum and Robbins "bamboozled" exactly? Were they lied to? Prum says that he "blinked" but that's the understatement of the year, isn't it? If you Google "Prum ivory bill" you find the headline Even Skeptics Agree: The Ivory Bill Lives. Try to believe it!
"We were very skeptical of the first published reports and thought that the previous data were not sufficient to support this startling conclusion," [Prum] said. "But the thrilling new sound recordings provide clear and convincing evidence that the ivory-billed woodpecker is not extinct."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_ivorybill.html
So what does Prum mean when he now says, "I blinked"? He did a bit more than simply raise the security gate for Fitzcrow et al. to their business. As I recall, Prum said the sound recordings ALONE proved there was more than one bird! This is an "expert"???
Don't get me wrong: I'm glad that Prum now sees the light. But how in hell did this happen? How did unpublished "double knocks" and "kent calls" become -- in the absence of even a crappy but definitive goddxmn picture, for cripesakes -- the extraordinary proof needed to demonstrate an "ornithological miracle" to the world?
It just doesn't make sense. I can understand the rubes buying it (and buy it, they did, hook, line and roost hole). The rubes thought what I thought when I first saw the paper: some "very serious" and "credible" scientist was sure he saw an IBWO, he went with a video camera back to the spot where he saw it, on the way they heard those "unique" double-knocks and kent calls (so exciting, it MUST be close!) and then HOLY BEJEEBUS THERE IT IS they saw the "Lord God" bird and managed to capture their sighting on video although the resolution left a little bit to be desired nobody could doubt that it was an IBWO.
That's how the story appeared at first glance, which is all most of the celebrators gave it.
But if you took a second glance that story fell apart immediately into a giant pile of cobbled together ad hoc doo-doo. Nobody saw an IBWO in real time, nobody heard that bird on the video make any noise whatsoever, and nobody can determine from a recorded "double-knock" or "kent call" what thing or creature is making the noises.
And all of that was obvious and is obvious. For Prum to offer now that "he blinked" is as weird as a security guard claiming that he "blinked" when the bank's camera shows him driving the crooks' getaway car.
Post a Comment