Evidence for the Survival of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker (2 Viewers)

timeshadowed · Aug 28, 2005

If hgr389 and buck3m wish to conclude as FACT that the ARK sightings were that of a leucistic Pileated woodpecker and not the IBWO, then THEY must also submit as much evidence for their conculsion as THEY are expecting the official search team to provide. Otherwise all that is being done in this thread is discussing the OPINIONS held by hgr389 and buck3m.

So far, I have not seen this kind of evidence being submitted on this thread or in the thread where this discussion began.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=384851#post384851

It would seem that they are using a double-standard here. They have set a HIGH standard of proof that the IBWO exists yet conversely have set a LOW standard of proof that leucistic Pileated woodpeckers exist that show plumage patterns similiar to that of the IBWO.

They seem very willing to accept only verbal accounts (no clear photos) of sightings of the leucistic Pileated woodpecker marked like IBWO's yet dismiss the verbal accounts of those who claim to have seen an IBWO.

Further discussion using this double standard is pointless.

So, hgr389 and buck3m, where are your clear photos of the abnormally plumaged Pileated that resemble the plumage markings of the IBWO??????

TimeShadowed

buck3m · Aug 28, 2005

timeshadowed said:
If hgr389 and buck3m wish to conclude as FACT that the ARK sightings were that of a leucistic Pileated woodpecker and not the IBWO, then THEY must also submit as much evidence for their conculsion as THEY are expecting the official search team to provide.

That isn't what we've said. What we've said is that honest errors may have occurred due to a combination of sightings of any or all of the following: a leucistic Pileated, another abnormally plumaged Pileated, or normal Pileated woodpeckers honestly mis-IDed.

I have suggested that it's even possible that there was a prank of some kind played ON the team.

Without more solid evidence, it's too early to accept as fact ANY of these theories, in my opinion.

Again, no one is questioning the integrity of the team. I don't think any reasonable person is even saying it's impossible that the Ivory-bill lives.

Please read the Fred Collins paper for yourself and see if you think his report rings true. I don't know if he or anyone else has photos of those Pileated woodpeckers that were marked like Ivory-bills. They must have gotten a very good look to see they weren't Ivory-bills.

As far as the photo of the abnormally plumaged Pileated woodpecker from the Cache River area as reported by team member Rosenberg, you'd have to ask him to see the photo. I know I'D like to see it! Seems like that Pileated would have been worthwhile to report in the original paper.

I would also like to point out that both the Rosenberg statement and the Fred Collins paper are "new evidence" and highly relevant to the debate.

I am another person who accepts David Sibley's standard of proof. "Repeated sightings by independent observers of birds really well seen."

If the IB exists, I'd expect that standard of proof to be met in the next few months, and I hope it is.

timeshadowed · Aug 28, 2005

buck3m said:
That isn't what we've said. What we've said is that honest errors may have occurred due to a combination of sightings of any or all of the following: a leucistic Pileated, another abnormally plumaged Pileated, or normal Pileated woodpeckers honestly mis-IDed.
(snip) . . . . . .
I am another person who accepts David Sibley's standard of proof. "Repeated sightings by independent observers of birds really well seen."

If the IB exists, I'd expect that standard of proof to be met in the next few months, and I hope it is.

Spin, Spin, and more Spin . . .

Quote:
"I am another person who accepts David Sibley's standard of proof. "Repeated sightings by independent observers of birds really well seen." -- buck3m"

You still are not presenting ANY hard evidence that "a leucistic Pileated, {or} another abnormally plumaged Pileated" even EXITS.

Both of you are just assuming that it does exist without applying the SAME standards you do to the IBWO (ie "Repeated sightings by independent observers of birds really well seen.")

THAT is what makes this discussion pointless. THAT is using a double standard!

TimeShadowed

buck3m · Aug 28, 2005

timeshadowed said:
You still are not presenting ANY hard evidence that "a leucistic Pileated, {or} another abnormally plumaged Pileated" even EXITS.

A team member (Rosenberg) says that he has seen a photo of an abnormally plumaged Pileated. A photo is hard evidence. Surely you will take a team member's word?

I politely remind you that the burden of proof lies with those claiming the ivory-bill exists. All these points we are trying to make is to show how easy it would be to make a mistake. Mistakes of this nature have unquestionably been made many, many times in the search for the ivory-bill, and will be made again in the future. We are not trying to prove any one of these counter explanations is THE explanation. We are trying to prove that there are other possible explanations that may be more probable. We are saying the ivory-bill's existence has yet to be satisfactorily proven, not that it has necessarily been disproved.

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." Marcello Truzzi

Let's keep looking. The truth will come out.

timeshadowed · Aug 29, 2005

And Buck3m's spinning continues:

buck3m said:
A team member (Rosenberg) says that he has seen a photo of an abnormally plumaged Pileated. A photo is hard evidence. Surely you will take a team member's word?

The following quote comes from this site:
http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1298

Where Chuck Hagner, (Editor - Birder's World) says:

"Rosenberg said that there were reports of such birds, and that he had seen a photograph of a Pileated that was missing upper-wing coverts. The missing feathers exposed more white than usual on the bird’s wing. Rosenberg said that the resulting pattern was not symmetrical, and stressed that he had seen nothing to contradict the team’s conclusion that the Luneau bird’s wing pattern was that of an Ivory-bill."

Since these patches of white were not symmetrical,, they do NOT resemble that of the IBWO which IS symmetrical.

buck3m said:
I politely remind you that the burden of proof lies with those claiming the ivory-bill exists.

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." Marcello Truzzi

Why does the burden of proof lie "with those claiming the ivory-bill exists"?

Science has never 'proved' or officially listed the IBWO as indeed extinct. There were some who claimed that it was probably extinct, but this is NOT the same as declaring it a FACT. Therefore, the burden of 'proof' still lies with those who claim that the bird has not survived.

TimeShadowed

curunir · Aug 29, 2005

buck3m said:
That isn't what we've said. What we've said is that honest errors may have occurred due to a combination of sightings of any or all of the following: a leucistic Pileated, another abnormally plumaged Pileated, or normal Pileated woodpeckers honestly mis-IDed.

From this does it follow that you believe the Cornell team is honest but basically incompetant?

buck3m · Aug 29, 2005

curunir said:
From this does it follow that you believe the Cornell team is honest but basically incompetant?

Of course not. I also don't believe they're infallible.

timeshadowed said:
Why does the burden of proof lie "with those claiming the ivory-bill exists"?

I guess if it doesn't, there's no really no debate.

timeshadowed · Aug 29, 2005

buck3m said:
I guess if it doesn't, there's no really no debate.

So are you agreeing to end this thread on that note?

curunir · Aug 29, 2005

buck3m said:
I politely remind you that the burden of proof lies with those claiming the ivory-bill exists.

Not true, the burden of proof still lies with those who claim the ivorybill doesn't exist. The Cornell group just said they saw one. That's their burden.

Pileated_MO · Aug 29, 2005

buck3m said:
I have suggested that it's even possible that there was a prank of some kind played ON the team.
.

So, I wonder how much of a fight the poor pileated put up as its wings were being painted. ;-)

buck3m · Sep 1, 2005

curunir said:
Not true, the burden of proof still lies with those who claim the ivorybill doesn't exist. The Cornell group just said they saw one. That's their burden.

Proof needs to be shown by an accurate interpretation of the body of evidence upon which they draw their conclusions. The conclusion itself is not "proof."

Direct quote of a slide from a lecture called "Science - Methods, Misuse, and Madness" given at George Mason University. Capitalization is from the slide:

Two Big Rules in Science:

The Burden of Proof Lies is on the person MAKING the CLAIM.

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DEMAND EXTRAORDINARY PROOF

As you can see from the title of the thread, the debate is on the evidence FOR the survival of the IB.

The most verifiable "proof" from the team consists of audio, which even the team concedes may not be ivory-bills at all, and a short, blurry video, which even the team has described as "crummy."

A recent New York Times article had this quote from Dr. Jerome Jackson, author of In Search of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker

Several incomplete or inconclusive lines of evidence do not add up to conclusive evidence, Dr. Jackson said, adding, "The bottom line is we simply can't know yet, we don't have the conclusive proof."

curunir · Sep 1, 2005

buck3m said:
Proof needs to be shown by an accurate interpretation of the body of evidence upon which they draw their conclusions. The conclusion itself is not "proof."

Direct quote of a slide from a lecture called "Science - Methods, Misuse, and Madness" given at George Mason University. Capitalization is from the slide:

Two Big Rules in Science:

The Burden of Proof Lies is on the person MAKING the CLAIM.

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DEMAND EXTRAORDINARY PROOF

As you can see from the title of the thread, the debate is on the evidence FOR the survival of the IB.

The most verifiable "proof" from the team consists of audio, which even the team concedes may not be ivory-bills at all, and a short, blurry video, which even the team has described as "crummy."

A recent New York Times article had this quote from Dr. Jerome Jackson, author of In Search of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker

Several incomplete or inconclusive lines of evidence do not add up to conclusive evidence, Dr. Jackson said, adding, "The bottom line is we simply can't know yet, we don't have the conclusive proof."

Like I said, they don't have to prove it exists, it just so happens that any conclusive sighting does just that. The science of it is that if no one has heretofore fielded a big team to find the bird then no one has fielded a big team to not find it. Like the Houston toad, if a developer wanted to build something on forest land that might have an ivorybill on it, then he could face legal challenges up his slimy wazoo because the ESA says he will. Now if a big group of ornithologists somehow got the big woodie delisted then that would be a different story. Seeing UFOs or Bigfoot would be an extraordinary claim, seeing the giant pecker doesn't rise to the level of extraordinary.

timeshadowed · Sep 2, 2005

curunir said:
Like I said, they don't have to prove it exists, it just so happens that any conclusive sighting does just that. (snip). . . Now if a big group of ornithologists somehow got the big woodie delisted then that would be a different story. Seeing UFOs or Bigfoot would be an extraordinary claim, seeing the giant pecker doesn't rise to the level of extraordinary.

I agree with curunir.

Cornell doesn't have to prove that the IBWO exists, since it has NEVER been officially declared or listed AS EXTINCT.

According to the ESA the IBWO still is listed as being ENDANGERED,-- not extinct.

Therefore to declare that an IBWO was observed is NOT an "EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM".

End of Story!!

TimeShadowed

timeshadowed · Sep 2, 2005

timeshadowed said:
Cornell doesn't have to prove that the IBWO exists, since it has NEVER been officially declared or listed AS EXTINCT.

According to the ESA the IBWO still is listed as being ENDANGERED,-- not extinct.

Therefore to declare that an IBWO was observed is NOT an "EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM".

Put another way:

Science does not demand EXTRAORDINARY proof that the IBWO is ALIVE, since it never declared that the bird was dead in the first place!

TimeShadowed

buck3m · Sep 3, 2005

timeshadowed said:
Therefore to declare that an IBWO was observed is NOT an "EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM".

End of Story!!

TimeShadowed

If you asked the average North American birder to name the most extraordinary birding news of his or her life, I think it's fair to say "The Ivory-bill" would be at the top of most people's list.

To claim that the Cornell announcement that they had found a living bird wasn't extraordinary is simply ridiculous.

From Audubon Magazine: "By now everyone knows the miracle of the ivory-billed woodpecker. Here's an insider's account of what it was like being on the other side of the conservation story of the century."

Sounds extraordinary to me. And it is.

timeshadowed · Sep 3, 2005

buck3m said:
If you asked the average North American birder to name the most extraordinary birding news of his or her life, I think it's fair to say "The Ivory-bill" would be at the top of most people's list.

To claim that the Cornell announcement that they had found a living bird wasn't extraordinary is simply ridiculous.

From Audubon Magazine: "By now everyone knows the miracle of the ivory-billed woodpecker. Here's an insider's account of what it was like being on the other side of the conservation story of the century."

Sounds extraordinary to me. And it is.

UM. . . .

You're confusing the issue as always.

Your use of the word 'extraordinary' has to do with public OPINION not SCIENTIFIC FACT.

The public had been convinced that the IBWO was dead.

Science had not declared the IBWO dead.

According to Science this is NOT an 'extraordinary' event since 'science' did not think that the IBWO was dead.

TimeShadowed

buck3m · Sep 3, 2005

timeshadowed said:
UM. . . .

According to Science this is NOT an 'extraordinary' event since 'science' did not think that the IBWO was dead.

TimeShadowed

Most people in the world of science thought the ivory-bill was likely extinct. Reporting a confirmed sighting of a bird widely thought to be extinct is extraordinary, isn't it? Don't you think that's what everyone's so excited about, scientists and common folks alike?

"Long thought extinct" Science Daily
"Once thought extinct" Department of the Interior
"Long believed to be extinct" Cornell
"Whether or not the bird still exists (odds are strongly against it)..." John Fitzpatrick, 2002

The news, the subject of an announcement by the journal Science, has stunned ornithologists world-wide, as the species was widely assumed to have gone extinct in North America since the last confirmed sighting in 1944. Birdlife international

The National Geographic:"Thought now to be extinct in North America..."

From the Fish and Wildlife Service "In April, the Department of the Interior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, The Nature Conservancy, and other partners announced the extraordinary rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker at Cache River National Wildlife Refuge.

“This extraordinary rediscovery provides hope for the 18 species classified as Potentially Extinct, such as Jamaican Petrel, Javan Lapwing and Pink-headed Duck,” says Dr. Michael Rands, Director and Chief Executive of BirdLife International.

"It's an extraordinary find because no one ever thought we'd see a living ivory-billed woodpecker again." Science News for Kids

"Although the Ivory-billed Woodpecker has never officially been considered extinct, the discovery of a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker is extraordinary!" enaturalist.org

timeshadowed · Sep 3, 2005

A few posts up you said this:

buck3m said:
We are saying the ivory-bill's existence has yet to be satisfactorily proven, not that it has necessarily been disproved.
"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." Marcello Truzzi

In other words, you are demanding that SCIENCE now must prove a fact - that the IBWO still exists.

Yet, SCIENCE has never declared AS FACT that the IBWO has gone extinct - as your quotes suggest - they only THOUGHT that it MAY BE extinct.

There lies the BIG difference.

If the IBWO was never declared extinct by the scientific world, why must they present 'extraordinary proof' that is still exists????

The following quotes that you used are still only OPINIONS, and not scientific FACT:

buck3m said:
Most people in the world of science thought . . . (snip)
"Long thought. . .(snip) Science Daily
"Once thought. . .(snip) Department of the Interior
"Long believed. . .(snip) Cornell

(edit - Still just his opinion, not a fact

"Whether or not the bird still exists (odds are strongly against it)..." John Fitzpatrick, 2002

". . .(snip)widely assumed" Birdlife international

The National Geographic:"Thought. . .(snip) in North America..."

"no one ever thought Science News for Kids

(edit - This is still expressing only an OPINION not a FACT)

"Although the Ivory-billed Woodpecker has never officially been considered extinct, the discovery of a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker is extraordinary!"enaturalist.org

Again, I ask you:
If the IBWO was never declared extinct by the scientific world, why must they present 'extraordinary proof' that is still exists????

TimeShadowed

Edward woodwood · Sep 3, 2005

Steve said:
I will give you any 100/1 against !

I'll have £20 on that.

When a bird is captured or an absolutely cracking pic is taken, can i collect?
I'll take a cheque Steve

this is easy money folks; despite the weird conspiracy ramblings of late

Tim B

jurek · Sep 3, 2005

Steve said:
I will give you any 100/1 against !

Good - I bet 10 EURO.

Done.

Evidence for the Survival of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker (2 Viewers)

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Well-known member

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Native Missourian

Well-known member

Well-known member

Time is a Shadow

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Time is a Shadow

Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread