• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (3 Viewers)

Re: Cyberthrush Blog

Very interesting, a very well thought out piece, based entirely on facts and, commendably, not resorting to using MASSIVE assumptions to illustrate the mindset of hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of sceptical people. No doubt Mr. Cyberthrush has conducted his own survey of sceptics in coming to these startling conclusions....

Just one or two points, firstly addressing :

1. They greatly UNDERestimate the amount of adequate habitat available for Ivory-bills at any given time.

Maybe, but there is also alot of adequate Great Auk habitat as well (ie, sea), are we not giving them a fair crack of the whip?

3. They wholly underestimate the tenaciousness and adaptability of living things in general, and this species in particular.


And you take this point of view for what reason exactly? Taking a sceptical standpoint on a subject does not equate to underestimating nature.

2. They greatly OVERestimate the amount of previous serious searching carried out (hardly any large-scale, organized searching before 2002); and with typical human arrogance place unwarranted faith in the competency and thoroughness of previous searching, when in fact very limited numbers birders have ever actually accessed likely Ivory-bill habitat for any significant length of time

Sorry for being human. And we are to be condemned for placing faith in previous searches? Why? What makes the previous searchers incompetent? I find this incredibly hypocritical, especially in light of the Arkansas effort.

6. They falsely use a pre-conceived and premature notion of extinction to automatically discount future claims of the bird's existence; failing in short, to keep an open, objective mind (as scientists MUST do) regarding future evidence, yet blindly accepting, with no scientific critiquing, past conclusions/generalizations about the species, that lack a solid basis.

From what I've seen, claims are not 'automatically discounted', more that sufficient conclusive proof has not been provided to back up said claims. Also, what are these conclusions/generalizations that lack such a solid basis? Are you referring to Tanner? Granted, we should not rely solely on his observations given the relatively low number of birds that he observed, but looking at it fairly, at least we know for certain that he was looking at IBWO's.

7. They utterly fail to comprehend the difficulty of getting photographic evidence of such a deep woods creature, falsely assuming any bird this large should be easy to capture on film. Indeed they seem to labor under the false notion that MOST birds in this country actually get seen and identified by birders, when in actuality most individual birds (including large ones) live their entire lives unseen by birders. Only a small percentage of what is out there is ever recorded by humans, let alone by cameras.

Can you please provide a reference for these statistics so we can all check the percentage figures for ourselves?

11. In the particular instance of the Arkansas claims they focused far too much time, energy, and thought on a single 4-second piece of video, rather than looking fully, objectively, at the entire range of evidence past and present.

This was one of the main features of CLO's argument in declaring the species extant. As it is of such poor quality, it was always going to be focused on and generate massive debate.

12. And finally, they simply feed off each others' cynicism to reinforce their own preconceptions, rather than realistically assessing the probabilities of each new claim -- they are so deeply entrenched in their own regimented "groupthink," and fanciful notions, assumptions, and circular reasoning they fail to even recognize it.

Sceptics being accused of 'groupthink'? I don't think I've ever heard such hypocritical garbage in my entire life

The loggers, collectors, and hunters of yesteryear may be forgiven for their actions, simply normal for their time; it will be more difficult to forgive skeptics however for their ruinously persistent failures should those lead to the Ivory-bill's final demise.

Aaah, it all becomes clear, it's all OUR fault if the species is never refound? Thank you for clearing that one up for us.

13. Oh, and did I forget to mention it, they are stubbornly boneheaded.

Good to see you've kept it nice and mature.

Sincerely

A.Bonehead
 
I love the smell of flamebait in the morning. Cyberthrush reads this thread and has posted here from time to time. Had he wished to make his points in this forum, he could easily have done so. He's got a moderated comments section on his blog, and I'm pretty sure he allows rebuttals. I don't think it's appropriate to copy someone else's blog entry in its entirety and post it, (I presume) without permission.

Back to lurking.



Bonsaibirder said:
Hi All,

I thought readers of this forum might be interested in this from Cyberthrush's blog. Plenty of food for thought and points for discussion:
 
Cyberthrush at ivorybills.blogspot.com said:
3. They wholly underestimate the tenaciousness and adaptability of living things in general, and this species in particular.
This is the most curious remark of all.
I think this species in particular, like its Cuban and Mexican relatives, has shown to be very bad at adapting!
If it is so good at adapting, why still search old growth bald cypress swamps...?
 
Last edited:
It's one of the crassest things I've ever read on the subject. I'm not suprised people have picked it up and ran with it.

I am so embarrassed I ever 'believed' in the very early days, and that it has been noticed... That'll teach me to do my own research, as i usually religeously do before going along with anyone again; I'm sceptical by nature, but got bitten bigtime believing Cornell without just checking the 'evidence' for myself. Guess i just wanted it to be true and never imagined it would have been based on such garbage... and people are coining it in on the back of it all now.

Tim
 
MMinNY said:
I don't think it's appropriate to copy someone else's blog entry in its entirety and post it.
.

Why not? Shows the mindset of some of those involved and thus quite appropriate to this thread.

MMinNY said:
He's got a moderated comments section on his blog, and I'm pretty sure he allows rebuttals.

Self moderated, ya good.
 
Well, there's a little something called a copyright. . .for starters. Snip it and link to it. . .don't post it in full.

Have you tried posting a rebuttal on his blog? Self-moderation is pretty common in the blogosphere; no reason to complain about it unless and until your response is rejected.


Jos Stratford said:
Why not? Shows the mindset of some of those involved and thus quite appropriate to this thread.


Self moderated, ya good.
 
Tim Allwood said:
It's one of the crassest things I've ever read on the subject. I'm not suprised people have picked it up and ran with it.

I am so embarrassed I ever 'believed' in the very early days, and that it has been noticed... That'll teach me to do my own research, as i usually religeously do before going along with anyone again; I'm sceptical by nature, but got bitten bigtime believing Cornell without just checking the 'evidence' for myself. Guess i just wanted it to be true and never imagined it would have been based on such garbage... and people are coining it in on the back of it all now.

Tim
Don't sweat it Tim. Most people believed when the news first broke. Over time, however, the paucity of further evidence and the severe doubt cast on the Cornell video analysis has led to a more moderated opinion. Unfortunately, the actions of IBWO 'fanatics' has not helped the case - a cliquey 'in group', a seeming lack of interest and knowledge of the wider ornithological world, unsubstantiated reports taken on faith, secret videos, obviously fake photos, conspiracy theories, unscientific analysis, the refusal to answer reasonable questions, and constant hints at the 'big one' that is going to rock the world any day, simply cloud the issue. Sceptics would be delighted if the IBWO has survived and definitive evidence is obtained. I just wonder what the hardcore fanatics would do with their time then, and what they would move onto next.

As for the blog. He's putting his opinions in the public domain. Either he stands by them or he doesn't. Unless he has an explicit copyright notice on the blog, I can't see the problem.
 
Posted by EMalatesta
Post #5647

As for non-birders, you can't trust them at all. Not that they're "stupid, lying, or crazy" (the familiar buzzwords of the fanatical IBW believers), but it's just that non-birders lack the experience to appreciate differences in size, shape, colors, behavior, habitat, etc., that are critical in making accurate identifications. Not that they're always wrong, but you can't place much weight on their reports.
-------------
That is a very broad statement, especially when you do not know the background of the non-birder.

Does this also apply to those non-birders who have studied non-bird species much more difficult to identify in the field than many bird species.

Do you feel that someone who has studied Eastern Cottontails, New England Cottontails and pure form European wild rabbits in the wild lacks the qualifications to tell the difference between a Pileated and an Ivorybill. There is far more difference between a Pileated and an Ivorybill than there is between the three species listed above.
 
Last word on the subject and then it really is back to lurking. Posting on a blog doesn't mean that something is "in the public domain", a term which has a specific legal meaning. Copyright notice is not required under U.S. law. As someone who has had his work reprinted on the net, without links to back to the source, I'm offended by this kind of thing. The minimum courtesy would have been to link to Cybethrush's blog.



 
Mike Johnston said:
Don't sweat it Tim. Most people believed when the news first broke. Over time, however, the paucity of further evidence and the severe doubt cast on the Cornell video analysis has led to a more moderated opinion. Unfortunately, the actions of IBWO 'fanatics' has not helped the case - a cliquey 'in group', a seeming lack of interest and knowledge of the wider ornithological world, unsubstantiated reports taken on faith, secret videos, obviously fake photos, conspiracy theories, unscientific analysis, the refusal to answer reasonable questions, and constant hints at the 'big one' that is going to rock the world any day, simply cloud the issue. Sceptics would be delighted if the IBWO has survived and definitive evidence is obtained. I just wonder what the hardcore fanatics would do with their time then, and what they would move onto next.

As for the blog. He's putting his opinions in the public domain. Either he stands by them or he doesn't. Unless he has an explicit copyright notice on the blog, I can't see the problem.

And some of these "fanatics" you mention could probably mop the floor with the "skeptics" in terms of common sense, real accomplishment, knowledge of and experience in nature, etc.

I've said it before, but many of the types, not all, that have found their "niche" in what passes for the ornithological establishment would be hard-pressed to run a donut shop. The cowardly "groupthink" which abounds in these same circles is a great deal responsible for the state the extant ivorybill woodpecker is in today.

Whether or not it was appropriate to post Cyberthrush's latest entry here, his words sure makes some damn good sense, and sums up what I've felt all along. Many thanks to Cyber for the energy he shows in helping us keep up on the latest concerning the Ivorybill.
 
gws said:
The cowardly "groupthink" which abounds in these same circles is a great deal responsible for the state the extant ivorybill woodpecker is in today.
No, I still blame Singer and all the other money grabbing loggers.
More on groupthink and the origins of the use of this word in the IBWO non-discussion can be found on Tom Nelson's blog (isn't that an unexpected source):
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2005/10/more-on-groupthink.html

70ivorybill78 said:
Does this also apply to those non-birders who have studied non-bird species much more difficult to identify in the field than many bird species.
Oh yes...
Anyway, although I'll admit at being rubbish at distinguishing all those cottontails, European Rabbits are easy!
 
The main point of the IBWO debate remains:

Extinction vs Existence

Most (not all) skeptics start with the notion that the IBWO is extinct. This is truely 'group-think' at its best. This leads to 'circuliar reasoning' on the part of the skeptics because they automaticly must reject all information that does not support the 'extinct belief' in which they started.

The ones who start with the belief that the IBWO exists have more freedom to look objectivly at all information and either accept it or reject it.

The bottom line is:
The existence of the IBWO does not end or start with the CLO video. Even if the bird in the CLO video is a PIWO, that does not prove that the IBWO is extinct.

TimeShadowed
 
timeshadowed said:
Most (not all) skeptics start with the notion that the IBWO is extinct.

Is that true? Most skeptics I spoke to, including me were intially convinced the Fitzpatrick et al paper HAD shown that IBWO exists, and became skeptics later when they had time to reflect on the evidence.


timeshadowed said:
The bottom line is:
The existence of the IBWO does not end or start with the CLO video. Even if the bird in the CLO video is a PIWO, that does not prove that the IBWO is extinct.

That's true. If you take all the evidence together, there is enough to be going on to justify continuing the search. But without the CLO video, there is nothing to convince people who haven't actually been out there and seen one, that IBWO exists. Fitzpatrick et al could not have published in Science without the video. As the video falls apart, believers belittle its importance, but at the time it was central to the scientific case, and it still is.
 
timeshadowed said:
The main point of the IBWO debate remains:

Extinction vs Existence
agreed


timeshadowed said:
Most (not all) skeptics start with the notion that the IBWO is extinct.
not true



timeshadowed said:
Even if the bird in the CLO video is a PIWO, that does not prove that the IBWO is extinct.
agreed

As has been said by many people, it is very very very hard to prove that a species is extinct and (relatively) easy to prove that it is extant.

Even if IBWO is already extinct, IBWOs will continue to be reported for many years to come. If it is extant, then someone will see it properly and document it properly.

By the way, apologies to Cyberthrush and everyone else if my web ettiquette was below par - I have edited my previous post to include a link rather than a copy of Cyberthrush's blog post.
 
timeshadowed said:
Most (not all) skeptics start with the notion that the IBWO is extinct. This is truely 'group-think' at its best. This leads to 'circuliar reasoning' on the part of the skeptics because they automaticly must reject all information that does not support the 'extinct belief' in which they started.

Well, I'm glad you're telling me exactly how I think. I was definitely convinced by CLO (though amazed), because how could Cornell make a mistake. Some time went by, and a disinterested friend who had seen the video suggested I actually watch it, so I finally downloaded all the necessary drivers and updates for my computer. I watched the video--and was utterly amazed that something so bad was used as proof positive. I didn't think it was identifiable, and if you can't ID it, then you shouldn't be calling it either PIWO or IBWO. Just prior to the Sibley paper, some new interpretations of the bird's position showed up on the internet, and I started seeing it as a PIWO. Then Sibley et al. appeared, and that argument convinced me it was a PIWO for sure, not just unidentifiable.

Do I automatically reject all information that doesn't not support extinction? I've been trying for weeks to get Mike Collins to clarify some things in his video for me, and he won't do it. I wonder why?
 
European rabbits are easy when you are in Europe, where they are the only wild rabbit species. When you compare non-typicals in both cottontails and Europeans in areas of North America where Europeans and feral San Juans have been released it puts a whole new spin on species identification in the field. Much harder than identifying European rabbits in the wild from European, Irish or Snow Hares.
 
Just before getting on-topic again: to see the difference between Eastern Cottontails and European Rabbits: chase them — the tails are very different. Cottontails also (often?) have dark ear tips, which rabbits lack. With pics on the web I admit I get confused, but maybe so are the people who put them there.
But obviously I'm a birder and not a mammaler!
 
The language of this discussion is locked in a completely unhelpful contest of 'believers' vs 'sceptics'. And worse, neither of these terms is being applied correctly and to the right groups. It's no surprise then that any attempt at rational discussion quickly drops to schoolyard level, when the many valid perspectives and opinions are constrained by these two inappropriate terms.

'Belief' has no place in scientific discourse in that it describes the faith-based holding of a certain position, independently and unresponsive to any evidence. Unfortunately that doesn't stop many scientists from using that word when what they really mean to describe is a well-considered and strongly held opinion.

'Sceptic'... well that should include anyone with a scientific way of thinking.

There are two groups of 'believers' here:

- those who seem to accept any IBWO claims, see themselves as an oppressed minority of the faithful, and imagine dark conspiracies...

- those who are completely unconvinced by IBWO evidence presented to date (itself no sign of fanaticism) but who have gone further into seeing themselves as an unappreciated minority of clear thinkers who oppose the scientific establishment, are nervous about government involvement, land-grabs, career preservation, and imagine dark conspiracies...

Or in the sense of Eric Hoffer, these are the 'true believers'. They have little to offer that is useful and not merely inflammatory. In fact, for most of them, of either persuasion, the capture of incontestible IBWO evidence would be the worst news possible and most of them would move on to another tinfoil cause and never be heard from again.

Everyone else, I hope, is an open-minded and clear-thinking sceptic, ranging from Cornell and the peer reviewers of their Science paper, to those who find the existing evidence inconclusive, but are open to seeing better. Along the way, there can be very useful and interesting discussions - among sceptics - of the evidence from Arkansas and elsewhere, of whether the CLO evidence constitutes an accepted record according to the standards of various ornithological bodies, of whether the new reports align with the historical data about habitat, behavior et al..

Before this thread devolved into stubborn name-calling there was a time when those who accept the existing evidence, or are otherwise persuaded of IBWO's persistence, as well as those who are unconvinced, were able to intelligently discuss the situation. For some this was the exploration of a newly rediscovered species about which remarkably little was ever known, for others it was at least a tolerant discussion of hypothetical cryptozoology.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top