Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)

[dave_in_michigan]

hey, you're doing the humourless IBWO nut thing of parroting an insult

at least come up with something of your own - like those insane theories.

and you have the gall to say i come up with excuses... ******* marvellous.

Good to see you're keeping your sense of humor intact.

 

[dave_in_michigan]

You're showing your bias, Dave. Rob's suggestion of decreasing wariness is just as reasonable as the increased wariness that you like so much, and you can find lots of evidence in support of both (think about Wild Turkey). What is not reasonable is arguing that wariness is a good explanation for the lack of confirmation. The Ivory-bill was, by all historical accounts, a normal large woodpecker - sitting on prominent snags banging away, calling frequently to mates, foraging repeatedly and for long periods on favored trees. It was apparently more social and more vocal than Pileated.

If it was hard to locate sometimes, and was scared away from potential nest sites by humans leaning against the tree, that is also perfectly normal behavior. I bet they were calling loudly from the treetops when their nest site was disturbed. The idea that those birds would become virtually invisible and silent is just not tenable. If you want a good hypothesis, I think it's more likely that some mutant young IBWOs that couldn't vocalize developed a new silent method of communication which they have now passed on to their young.

This is all just a convenient excuse to explain the lack of confirmation, and the wariness that is required goes so far beyond any known behavior it is just outlandish speculation. But it's the best way to reconcile the belief in living Ivory-bills with the lack of confirmation, so you cling to it because you won't or can't accept the overwhelming evidence that the species is extinct.

In a word, no.

If you care to know what I'm really thinking, you can start here. I really don't care to repeat it again.

If not, then I'll simply point out that you're fabricating a straw-man argument to burn down. You're description does not represent my thinking or what I'm doing.

 

[Louis Bevier]

I don't have time today to revisit the papers, but with all due respect, some studies probably relied on satellite and/or GPS telemetry, which remove altogether any need for direct observation. GPS position information provides all one needs to examine movements, home range size, and habitat use, which were some of the behaviors studied. I think that you and I would both agree that speculation and anecdotes are no substitute for quantitative data (e.g., flight distances)....

Thanks, Sidewinder. I think we all agree that behaviors can change. Attributing them to a species, however, requires seeing the organism and documenting its presence. I don't think you need to revisit the papers. Just ask yourself how did the satellite telemetry or GPS get on the organisms to measure wariness as you suggest? Yeah, you guessed it. They must have had their mitts on the animals or observed them. So, these are all, still, completely different from the untested, unverified hypotheses that Dave and Geoff Hill and others are ruminating about because they have not demonstrated that any IBWO possesses super-hiding and fleeing characteristics (=they haven't found any).

I hate to quibble about the use of anecdotal, but I think the accounts by Tanner and those of Peterson that I quoted (e.g., "once heard, is easy to find", or "we had no trouble following the two") should not be placed under the meaning of anecdotal where these statements are treated as not necessarily true or reliable. Some might want to discount them as merely anecdotal in that way because it allows them to explain the strange hiding behavior of their supposed Ivory-bills, but I think we can see through that motivation. Because Peterson and Tanner did see and study the birds, their description of the behavior contradicts the current reports. I think it is reasonable to conclude that all these theories about wariness cannot be attributed to the the Ivory-bill until they verify any are really there. It all sounds good, but only for a millisecond (you were too generous, Tim!).

 

[Piltdownwoman]

In a word, no.If you care to know what I'm really thinking, you can start here. I really don't care to repeat it again.

OK Dave, I'm trying to understand. Here's what you wrote on 13 December:

Just for the sake of discussion, if there is a 1% chance of truth to a claim, then true skeptical exchange would focus continuously on the details, viability, and legitimacy (or not) of that 1% possibility. But advocates of the 99% view do NOT want to focus on the 1%, but instead on the 99%! (which is ok, but it's an advocacy, NOT a skeptical approach). Even if the results of skeptical exchange is to effectively narrow the possibility from 1% to 0.01%, it is still not the kind of focus that advocates of the 99% view generally want to see, because it's about the possibility of of that small percentage, not about their belief in the high percentage.​

It's hard to follow your train of thought, but if I understand correctly, you are suggesting that skeptics (like me) should focus more on the details and legitimacy of the believers' ideas - the 1% chance that the IBWO survives - rather than our "belief in the high percentage" - the 99% chance that it doesn't survive. But you have it all wrong. The 99% is not a "belief" that we are "advocating". The 99% is based on evidence in the form of failed search efforts and zero confirmation. Millions of hours of experimental effort has all given the same result - no birds. Therefore it is reasonable to make the leap to say that the bird is not there. It is up to the believers to prove that the birds are there.

The 1% is crackpot theories that offer post hoc explanations for the failed search. There is an infinite supply of those theories, but one thing they all have in common so far is a total lack of evidence to support them. It is impossible to argue against an evidence-free hypothesis except to say that it is unlikely or implausible. So until these believers provide some actual evidence we can't have much of a skeptical debate, and there is no reason to consider their ideas any further.

 

[MMinNY]

A brief delurk -- this believer has never bought into the newly evolved wariness hypothesis. Scarcity and the difficulty of the terrain have always seemed adequate to explain the lack of a clear photo.

Pileateds are abundant in Wattensaw, but I'd say even a far better photographer than I might get one good photo for every 20-30 sightings.

 

[dave_in_michigan]

OK Dave, I'm trying to understand. Here's what you wrote on 13 December:

Just for the sake of discussion, if there is a 1% chance of truth to a claim, then true skeptical exchange would focus continuously on the details, viability, and legitimacy (or not) of that 1% possibility. But advocates of the 99% view do NOT want to focus on the 1%, but instead on the 99%! (which is ok, but it's an advocacy, NOT a skeptical approach). Even if the results of skeptical exchange is to effectively narrow the possibility from 1% to 0.01%, it is still not the kind of focus that advocates of the 99% view generally want to see, because it's about the possibility of of that small percentage, not about their belief in the high percentage.​

It's hard to follow your train of thought, but if I understand correctly, you are suggesting that skeptics (like me) should focus more on the details and legitimacy of the believers' ideas - the 1% chance that the IBWO survives - rather than our "belief in the high percentage" - the 99% chance that it doesn't survive. But you have it all wrong. The 99% is not a "belief" that we are "advocating". The 99% is based on evidence in the form of failed search efforts and zero confirmation. Millions of hours of experimental effort has all given the same result - no birds. Therefore it is reasonable to make the leap to say that the bird is not there. It is up to the believers to prove that the birds are there.

The 1% is crackpot theories that offer post hoc explanations for the failed search. There is an infinite supply of those theories, but one thing they all have in common so far is a total lack of evidence to support them. It is impossible to argue against an evidence-free hypothesis except to say that it is unlikely or implausible.

Yes, yes, YES !!!!!! (Note: I think some here do try to advocate that everyone should believe the birds are extinct. Not you perhaps.)

So until these believers provide some actual evidence we can't have much of a skeptical debate, and there is no reason to consider their ideas any further.

You should not consider these crackpot ideas when considering belief of extinction, since that would be particular version of "fallacy of probability". (That is, thinking there's reason to believe it is true just because there's a chance it's true. This is a fallacy.)

But I think it can still be debated just how unlikely it might be (1% or .001% for example), and that it may be worth doing so. Spending $1 on a 1-in-100 chance of winning $500 is a good bet. If you're chances are one in a million, then it's not. If you want the FWS to stop spending money on the search, you'd do well to show more conclusively what remaining odds might be.

How to evaluate the odds for IBWO? Not directly, certainly, so don't bother. Confidence in the info to date (failed searches in this case) is only as valid as how good the searches were (quality of the attempts to refute extinction). If the searches were not performed well or thoroughly, then larger chances remain. Which brings us all the way around to.... examining the remaining crackpot ideas about how IBWO might still be around.

Another benefit to this is that even if IBWO is extinct, if you can still debunk the invalid crackpot ideas and figure out which remaining few might be plausible (if still unlikely), then you can at get those crackpot searchers to do their job right and show more conclusively that IBWO is extinct.

[<ahem>...or if there are birds there, improve the chances of finding them. <ahem>]

 

[dave_in_michigan]

I hate to quibble about the use of anecdotal, but I think the accounts by Tanner and those of Peterson that I quoted (e.g., "once heard, is easy to find", or "we had no trouble following the two") should not be placed under the meaning of anecdotal where these statements are treated as not necessarily true or reliable. Some might want to discount them as merely anecdotal in that way because it allows them to explain the strange hiding behavior of their supposed Ivory-bills, but I think we can see through that motivation. Because Peterson and Tanner did see and study the birds, their description of the behavior contradicts the current reports. I think it is reasonable to conclude that all these theories about wariness cannot be attributed to the the Ivory-bill until they verify any are really there. It all sounds good, but only for a millisecond (you were too generous, Tim!).

I would agree that "anecdotal" is not the correct term. However Tanner himself warns about the small sample size;

"conclusions drawn from them will not necessarily apply to the species as it once was nor to individuals living in other areas."​

and

"one must draw conclusions carefully and with reservations."​

 

[rob stoff]

one must draw conclusions carefully and with reservations."

Try telling that to Cornell, I hardly think its something the average sceptic isn't aware of, that's why most refer to IBWO as presumably or probably extinct. If the believers were similarly rigorous they would be describing it as possible or probably extant but they wont allow the element of doubt to enter their thinking, how could they if they are really believers. Of course there are also those who state categorically that they've actually seen the thing but they're a different case altogether.

Rob

 

[MMinNY]

"Believer" and "skeptic" are just labels, and "true believer" is an epithet chosen for its insulting implications. My personal belief that the IBWO survives is based on my reading of the record. Is it a matter of faith? No. Could I be wrong? Of course. Do I have doubts? That's a little more complex; I'm personally convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond all doubt, mind you). Other people, many of them with far more experience and knowledge than I have, see things differently, so I can't possibly say that it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the broader arena. I'm comfortable with "probably extant."

Try telling that to Cornell, I hardly think its something the average sceptic isn't aware of, that's why most refer to IBWO as presumably or probably extinct. If the believers were similarly rigorous they would be describing it as possible or probably extant but they wont allow the element of doubt to enter their thinking, how could they if they are really believers. Of course there are also those who state categorically that they've actually seen the thing but they're a different case altogether.

Rob

 

[rob stoff]

"Believer" and "skeptic" are just labels, and "true believer" is an epithet chosen for its insulting implications. My personal belief that the IBWO survives is based on my reading of the record. Is it a matter of faith? No. Could I be wrong? Of course. Do I have doubts? That's a little more complex; I'm personally convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond all doubt, mind you). Other people, many of them with far more experience and knowledge than I have, see things differently, so I can't possibly say that it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the broader arena. I'm comfortable with "probably extant."

then your not really a believer, fine. Not sure how you'd define 'reasonable though'.

Rob

 

[salar53]

Falsify

Yes, yes, YES !!!!!! (Note: I think some here do try to advocate that everyone should believe the birds are extinct. Not you perhaps.)

You should not consider these crackpot ideas when considering belief of extinction, since that would be particular version of "fallacy of probability". (That is, thinking there's reason to believe it is true just because there's a chance it's true. This is a fallacy.)

But I think it can still be debated just how unlikely it might be (1% or .001% for example), and that it may be worth doing so. Spending $1 on a 1-in-100 chance of winning $500 is a good bet. If you're chances are one in a million, then it's not. If you want the FWS to stop spending money on the search, you'd do well to show more conclusively what remaining odds might be.

How to evaluate the odds for IBWO? Not directly, certainly, so don't bother. Confidence in the info to date (failed searches in this case) is only as valid as how good the searches were (quality of the attempts to refute extinction). If the searches were not performed well or thoroughly, then larger chances remain. Which brings us all the way around to.... examining the remaining crackpot ideas about how IBWO might still be around.

Another benefit to this is that even if IBWO is extinct, if you can still debunk the invalid crackpot ideas and figure out which remaining few might be plausible (if still unlikely), then you can at get those crackpot searchers to do their job right and show more conclusively that IBWO is extinct.

[<ahem>...or if there are birds there, improve the chances of finding them. <ahem>]

Yes, I noticed the very small print.
You often lose me with your Popperian arguments (but that's not hard to do!).
Perhaps you can falsify this.
You claim to have seen a pair of IBWOs near Orlando, Florida.
Now, did you possibly just make up that claim just to see if it could be demolished using the logic of Popper?

Or in plain language, did you really think for a while that you might have seen two Ivory-billed Woodpeckers?

 

[Edward woodwood]

If conclusive evidence, such as will convince the Tom Nelsons of this world, is found by the end of May 2007, I will immediately hand over one thousand pounds, or two thousand dollars, to an IBWO recovery plan.
If the evidence is produced, the pips will squeak all right, but I will gladly pay up.
.

way too easy wasn't it?

money tends to focus the mind - and your pips are still squeakless

Tim

 

[dave_in_michigan]

Yes, I noticed the very small print.
You often lose me with your Popperian arguments (but that's not hard to do!).
Perhaps you can falsify this.
You claim to have seen a pair of IBWOs near Orlando, Florida.
Now, did you possibly just make up that claim just to see if it could be demolished using the logic of Popper?

Or in plain language, did you really think for a while that you might have seen two Ivory-billed Woodpeckers?

This is the third time I'm answering this question for you, salar53.

Yes, I reported that I might have seen a pair of IBWO. Most people who've been here very long (including you) know this. No, I didn't make it up. My report was as sincere. And no, my opinion of it hasn't changed. They very well might not have been IBWO. If I knew then what I know now, I don't think I would have reported it publicly at all. I certainly don't try to make more of it than it is. And as a hint to you, I don't bring it up here, do I? I certainly wouldn't need to fabricate it to make any of the arguments I do here.

So now that I've answered your questions, maybe you will answer mine. Why are you bringing this up again? Do you do this to try to discredit me? Because although it shouldn't, it no doubt does in the eyes of many here.

And if you were being sincere, why not ask such a question via private message?

 

[salar53]

Money

way too easy wasn't it?

money tends to focus the mind - and your pips are still squeakless

Tim

Yes, money does indeed focus the mind.
And you are the one who publicly turned down a bet with me. True, you could have lost ten thousand pounds; but you turned down the bet on the pretext that a miracle could happen.
So I've held on to my money and shown that you are an ignostic, not an atheist!

 

[salar53]

Again

This is the third time I'm answering this question for you, salar53.

Yes, I reported that I might have seen a pair of IBWO. Most people who've been here very long (including you) know this. No, I didn't make it up. My report was as sincere. And no, my opinion of it hasn't changed. They very well might not have been IBWO. If I knew then what I know now, I don't think I would have reported it publicly at all. I certainly don't try to make more of it than it is. And as a hint to you, I don't bring it up here, do I? I certainly wouldn't need to fabricate it to make any of the arguments I do here.

So now that I've answered your questions, maybe you will answer mine. Why are you bringing this up again? Do you do this to try to discredit me? Because although it shouldn't, it no doubt does in the eyes of many here.

And if you were being sincere, why not ask such a question via private message?

I can assure you that no offence was intended, and I apologise if that is the impression I gave.
I was merely looking for clarification, elucidation - especially as your posts have looked increasingly sceptical, at least to my illogical eyes.
Or it was the oxymoron I was trying to clear up - Dave the sceptical believer.
And for what it's worth, I do think that paradoxes can make sense!

And you know, some might look at details of your sighting and think, "Hey, there just MIGHT be something to this IBWO thing after all".

And to be sincere, I didn't know you had to ask a question via private message. Jaysus Dave, there must be one of your logical fallacies in there somewhere!

 

[dave_in_michigan]

I can assure you that no offence was intended, and I apologise if that is the impression I gave.
I was merely looking for clarification, elucidation - especially as your posts have looked increasingly sceptical, at least to my illogical eyes.
Or it was the oxymoron I was trying to clear up - Dave the sceptical believer.
And for what it's worth, I do think that paradoxes can make sense!

And you know, some might look at details of your sighting and think, "Hey, there just MIGHT be something to this IBWO thing after all".

And to be sincere, I didn't know you had to ask a question via private message. Jaysus Dave, there must be one of your logical fallacies in there somewhere!

OK, thanks for clarifying, Salar. No offense taken. Sorry I bristled.

People shouldn't put any more into my report just because I might make some valid points here. And people certainly shouldn't believe I really saw IBWOs just because they think I'm credible. If I happen to get a couple things right about logic it doesn't do anything to make up for my lack of knowledge or experience about birds, or eliminate my fallibility as an observer. So don't put too much into it. Hill and Cornell both certainly didn't seem to think there was anything to it, and that should tell you something about it.

I was going to pull it, but then I thought I'd get flack for that, or that people might get the wrong impression. I'm not embarrassed by it, and I think it only fair that people know about it so that they can watch for biases in what I say. Yes, I think I saw a pair of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. I try to be objective, but I'm fallible just like everyone else. If I look at the data that's available, I see a very strong argument to support the belief that they are extinct. If I didn't think I saw a couple of them, I might think just that. And if I'm honest with myself I have to admit that it's possible I didn't see IBWOs. But if I'm honest to everyone here I have to admit I still think I did. Not that I think that's a surprise to most.

I'm afraid nothing good will come from that admission, because many "Believers" are likely to blindly trust me more and many "Skeptics" blindly less. It shouldn't be that way, and I don't wish for either of those results. Anyway, the site where my report is located will expire in a few months and I'm content to leave it at that. I just didn't get that good of a look.

As you can see, I don't see any conflict with someone being a "Believer" and supporting skepticism, at least not with the way I think of it (as refutation of weak arguments). I think healthy skepticism is essential to advancements in science and knowledge, and as a process should be independent of belief.

I still stand by everything I've said. Except maybe for a couple of the more snotty remarks and one or two of the less funny jokes. Maybe.

- Dave

 

[salar53]

Doubt

OK, thanks for clarifying, Salar. No offense taken. Sorry I bristled.

People shouldn't put any more into my report just because I might make some valid points here. And people certainly shouldn't believe I really saw IBWOs just because they think I'm credible. If I happen to get a couple things right about logic it doesn't do anything to make up for my lack of knowledge or experience about birds, or eliminate my fallibility as an observer. So don't put too much into it. Hill and Cornell both certainly didn't seem to think there was anything to it, and that should tell you something about it.

I was going to pull it, but then I thought I'd get flack for that, or that people might get the wrong impression. I'm not embarrassed by it, and I think it only fair that people know about it so that they can watch for biases in what I say. Yes, I think I saw a pair of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. I try to be objective, but I'm fallible just like everyone else. If I look at the data that's available, I see a very strong argument to support the belief that they are extinct. If I didn't think I saw a couple of them, I might think just that. And if I'm honest with myself I have to admit that it's possible I didn't see IBWOs. But if I'm honest to everyone here I have to admit I still think I did. Not that I think that's a surprise to most.

I'm afraid nothing good will come from that admission, because many "Believers" are likely to blindly trust me more and many "Skeptics" blindly less. It shouldn't be that way, and I don't wish for either of those results. Anyway, the site where my report is located will expire in a few months and I'm content to leave it at that. I just didn't get that good of a look.

As you can see, I don't see any conflict with someone being a "Believer" and supporting skepticism, at least not with the way I think of it (as refutation of weak arguments). I think healthy skepticism is essential to advancements in science and knowledge, and as a process should be independent of belief.

I still stand by everything I've said. Except maybe for a couple of the more snotty remarks and one or two of the less funny jokes. Maybe.

- Dave

It's interesting what you say about belief and scepticism. I have the impression that when most Americans use the term "sceptics" in this forum, they mean "unbelievers".
And I think that most people on this side of the pond use "sceptics" in the sense of "those who have doubts".
Maybe as somebody suggested (I forget who!) we all fit along a continuum of
true believer - believer - neutral - agnostic - atheist. But I have doubts about that too.

Seriously, and for the record, I do hope that you did indeed see IBWOs.
And that somebody soon gets that killer photograph.

 

[John Mariani]

To the Magic Guy - repeat: I'll be within a mile of Lake County from January 16th - let's organize an IBWO day. I have a camera I can bring.

Maybe Tmguy could organize a seance. Everyone hold hands around the cypress tree......listen carefully you can hear the double rapping...maybe the bird will even appear to you...if you don't mind it being the same one in his photograph.

 

[Greysands boy]

Hi all,

I do from time to time have a look at this highly interesting and high brow thread simply because its often at the top of the birds and birding forum, I find it highly entertaining to read,
So this morning im reading it and decide to look at the bird db above to see what it says about the bird and maybe see some old photos or plates on this fabled bird and low and behold it says once thought extinct but recentley discovered in Arkansas.

Is this true and if so what are all you lot still doing discussing this bird thats no longer extinct.

Cheers

Darryl H

 

[Imaginos]

Do yourself a favor Tim and study up on the Galopagos finches. They did a recent study which showed they in fact have evolved in just the past several years because of changes in weather patterns and other factors. I don't see whats so hard to believe that behavior could change somewhat after being hunted and collected during the late 1800's and early 1900's.

But they evolved through hybridisation with others in the suite of closely related species that inhabit those islands see, for example Grant & Grant's work on the rostris/magnirostris/fortis species complex summarised nicely in Weiner's The Beak of the Finch (note to last minute Xmas shoppers, this should be required reading for any birder.)

Oh, and the peculiarities of island biogeography need to be taken into account too.