chris murphy
Used Register
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
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