I have an analagous situation which may help to explain the scepticism some of us feel towards the scientific papers which now adorn this thread in some abundance.
For hundreds of years, people throughout the length and breadth of Britain have realised that if they go outside with wet hair or wet clothes, they are quite likely to get a chill and catch a cold. I myself had to painfully re-learn this familiar lesson recently.
However, scientists, doctors and medical experts have long told us that this is a myth. "Colds are caused by a virus" they say, "not by getting a chill outside. The "getting a chill" theory is a myth/fairytale/old wives' tale/untruth/cuddly toy/electric toaster/etc. etc. etc." they claim.
I have heard and seen many such arguments from the scientists and experts. Indeed (and Ian, this is for you so you don't try and make swipes about Strawmen arguments), I read one from a medical expert in a newspaper article just two weeks ago.
The problem is, many of us know that going outside with wet hair or wet clothes does indeed often lead to getting a cold - no matter how many scientific/"expert" opinions tell us otherwise.
I'm sure I don't need to labour the analogy, but suffice to say that this is how many of us round the country have found the whole Magpie/Song Birds situation to be.
And then interestingly, it turns out that there is a very good factual/scientific reason for why going out with wet clothes/hair causes colds - despite all those experts saying there is no link.
It turns out that the cold virus can be dormant in many people until activated by sudden changes in temperature - such as going out with wet hair, or wet socks, which causes the body temperature to drop [head and feet are particularly temperature sensitive] and the virus to be activated.
So, bascially, all those scientific and "expert" studies were wrong. And what was it that sustained those of us who knew from experience they were wrong, until factual back-up came our way? Why, personal experience.
Ditto [and I'm sure you had a cunning clue as to where I was heading with this] the personal experience of many that large numbers of Magpies locally often means sharply decreased numbers of song birds, and the removing of Magpies often leads to recovery of song bird populations.
And there is some evidence to back this up, including the two studies I have now mentioned several times [thank you James for noticing that mention; most others didn't seem to. I will redouble my efforts to contact Matt Ridley. Interestingly, he gave the study he was reviewing high marks].
Also some strong circumstantial evidence, of which I'll give one or two examples another time. But this post is already long enough, and has made its point......
