Who To Believe? (2 Viewers)

[Edward woodwood]

The cold virus causes the cold

Wittgenstein - clevererest bloke of the last century

whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent

everything that can be thought can be said

he was very hot on how language confuses us and confounds us. Things are simple if we see past the language - this thread in a nutshell - the long posts by the main protagonists (Jane's excellent stuff aside) actually cloud the issue a great deal.

 

[Edward woodwood]

"the scientists are therefore wrong."

Yep, that was precisely my point. ?

and mine - precisely my point ENTIRELY!!!!! If the sentence was put in quotes in its entirety not just the scientists part it would be a different meaning altogether...

the scientists are actually correct - just that now we understand it in more detail

yours philosophically
Timmy

 

[James Lowther]

the long posts by the main protagonists (Jane's excellent stuff aside) actually cloud the issue a great deal.

Sorry Tim,
we don't all have your pithy way with words, but just a little advice, sarky, know-it-all comments tend to alienate and antagonise people, not help them understand your point of view.

 

[Edward woodwood]

the scientists are not wrong about magpies etc etc

to live life as if they are is the absurd reductionist argument again - why believe any scientist about anything?

if you believe they are wrong you need to show it.

with numbers

and theories

and facts

scientists are actually correct 99% of the time as they use observation to come up with theories

theories without observations are guesses.

and usually incorrect

this thread is silly...

 

[Alan Hobson]

and mine - precisely my point ENTIRELY!!!!! If the sentence was put in quotes in its entirety not just the scientists part it would be a different meaning altogether...

the scientists are actually correct - just that now we understand it in more detail

yours philosophically
Timmy

Oh, sorry, yes, I see that yours can be read more than one way. It would have helped if you had used quotation marks and a hyphen!

 

[Keith Reeder]

Exactly what is the issue on this thread, Tim?

I mean, assuming that it wasn't someone simply asking why one piece of research should be believed over another - which I'd have sworn was gist of the original question.

It seems to me that a recurring theme of this thread comes is:

"you have to believe in the research - as long as it's the reseach I believe.."

 

[Nightranger]

Fair points Alan but there is an easy counter. Many people claim that songbird populations were not a problem during the 20th Century when game keepers had all but eliminated magpies. However, this totally ignores the fact that songbird populations were stable before game management was actively practised. Of course, records are relatively recent and all this is on hearsay evidence alone but we have the evidence of peole like Glibert White to go on.

The common cold analogy does break down a little though because it is not cold and wet that causes the problems but what this does to the human immune system. This makes the likelihood of catching a cold to be greater if we go in and out of hot and cold environments. In fact, the analogy works best if we consider Anthony's point with respect to what is actually being said. The paper Anthony quoted says that magpies have an effect on thrush and blackbird breeding success and not on the population trend. In the same way that cold weather is likely to make catching a virus more likely although it is perfectly accurate to say that the cold itself is not the reason for catching the virus.

I can only repeat that several research projects have specifically designed for looking at predation and none have ever uncovered any links. Where eyewitness accounts are valuable is where predation pressure is particularly high. What we have to be careful of is attributing the wrong conclusion though because what is certain is that magpies DO predate the nests of other birds. Magpies take very few mature birds and they are do not predate all nests, especially in the early and late season. I do not think it is without significance that the majority of reports to this office come at a time when magpies are breeding and not to mention nest predation of early or late nesting birds. The analogy would be that reports of sparrowhawks predating garden feeding birds go up in the winter. Sparrowhawks are not common urban breeding birds because they prefer solitude and mature trees and neither is widely available in urban areas. Therefore, non-breeding birds are free to follow the food supplies and it should be no surprise that sparrowhawks are more noticeable in winter. Nevertheless, increasing the breeding success is not going to increase a population or arrest a decline unless there is some element that increases survival rates AND increases nesting opportunities. House sparrows are a great example of this because they are sedentary birds and there does not appear to be a juvenile dispersal phase (as is the case with tree sparrows). This means that you can have 100% breeding succes for all four broods (as has very nearly happened over the last three summers) yet we are not seeing any sign of sparrows taking up "empty" breeding sites simply because none are available. Put another way, sparrows may at best have a stabilised population trend but there is still no sign of an increase. Once again, I invite you to look at the British Birds data and compare this to even the most conservative estimates of breeding productivity.

Ian

 

[Edward woodwood]

Exactly what is the issue on this thread, Tim?

I mean, assuming that it wasn't someone simply asking why one piece of research should be believed over another - which I'd have sworn was gist of the original question.

It seems to me that a recurring theme of this thread comes is:

"you have to believe in the research - as long as it's the reseach I believe.."

WHAT?

is anyone actually reading the posts?

point me to some (ANY!!!) reasearch showing the opposite please....

even the one quoted on here is not doing that

there is no case AT ALL

just hearsay and pub talk

 

[Edward woodwood]

Sorry Tim,
we don't all have your pithy way with words, but just a little advice, sarky, know-it-all comments tend to alienate and antagonise people, not help them understand your point of view.

and the best research and all the facts do help eh?

pithy enough?

I'm off before i start calling people thick

some folks like Bill Sutherland do know it all - but they just get ignored depsite doing mega extensive work

some folk will just never want to know the truth.

they stop the rest of us from getting on and evolving though

 

[Richard D]

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.

Alan - I thought this was only an unproven theory that they hadn't been able to produce under lab conditions? I'd be interested to see a source if it has been demonstrated in a lab as I may be behind the times.

In any case as Tim succinctly pointed out, the scientific view that colds are caused by a virus remains true.

As to magpies, the sheer weight of evidence against predation being a cause of decline in the songbird population should make even the most sceptical consider their views.

Regards Richard

 

[James Lowther]

Exactly what is the issue on this thread, Tim?

I mean, assuming that it wasn't someone simply asking why one piece of research should be believed over another - which I'd have sworn was gist of the original question.

It seems to me that a recurring theme of this thread comes is:

"you have to believe in the research - as long as it's the reseach I believe.."

Keith,
the point is, notwithstanding the papers alluded to by Alan that we haven't seen, there isn't any research showing magpies cause songbird declines. The research qouted in the article in the field was misrepresented. There is however masses of research showing the opposite.
James

 

[Nightranger]

Exactly what is the issue on this thread, Tim?

I mean, assuming that it wasn't someone simply asking why one piece of research should be believed over another - which I'd have sworn was gist of the original question.

It seems to me that a recurring theme of this thread comes is:

"you have to believe in the research - as long as it's the reseach I believe.."

Indeed Keith. Some contributors on the thread (not Anthony BTW for the sake of clarity although he seemed to imply it) are prepared to accept data for say a cormorant cull, which I presume was collected in a scientific manner yet are quite prepared to reject evidence that does not agree with their views. If we use this argument then surely we can extend it to say that house sparrows are not really declining. I know this sounds ridiculous because most of us have witnessed the decline by casual obeservation too but the place where I live now happens to be good for house sparrows. In fact, I can go a stage further because we get a few calls questioning the fact that starlings have declined too, especially if they happen to live next to a huge winter roost site. The biggest mistake is to assume that researchers are trying to hide the facts of predation for some reason. Not only would this be poor science, it would stand a good chance of being exposed by someone making an independent study. Believe me, there are plenty of people waiting in line to find something that will make their reputation. I just find it hard to swallow the inference that the RSPB and BTO are protecting predators when that would make both organisations extremely vulnerable. I have said this on another subject but the RSPB is a charitable organisation and openess is an absolute obligation. The society has been (and will continue to be) wrong on some subjects but that is usually down to insufficient data being available (we can only comment on what we have). this is not the case with predation and population declines as I hope, Jane demonstrated yesterday.

Ian

 

[Alan Hobson]

Right, I've just returned from the loo [yes, I know, thanks for sharing that] and, having thought about it, I am going to rephrase my point to avoid some of the tautological objections about causes.

Happily for my point, many of these experts go further than causes. They - including the one I read in the article just two weeks ago - claim that there is no link at all between going out in wet clothes and catching a cold.

Now most of you above agree that there is a link (for example, Ian, you specifically admitted a link, and Tim, you inferred there was), so forget about causes - let's concentrate on links.

Many of the experts/scientists deny there is even a link. But there is, as millions and millions of people have discovered to their cost over the centuries. So the scientists and experts are wrong. And if they're wrong about that...etc. etc. And don't get me started on vitamin C........

 

[Edward woodwood]

links are not worth a thing

correlations are not causations

 

[Nightranger]

Now most of you above agree that there is a link (for example, Ian, you specifically admitted a link, and Tim, you inferred there was), so forget about causes - let's concentrate on links.

Many of the experts/scientists deny there is even a link. But there is, as millions and millions of people have discovered to their cost over the centuries. So the scientists and experts are wrong. And if they're wrong about that...etc. etc. And don't get me started on vitamin C........

I dunno Alan, are the scientists really saying there is no link or are they saying something slightly different that there is no link to a cause? That is quite important when we consider what the paper was saying in Anthony's early post. Take the analogy further for instance, it is equally likely that you will contract a cold when you are tired and run down. This happens to us all the time so why do we not catch colds continously during the winter or when we are run down at any time of the year. Not only must our immune system be partially offline but we have to come into contact with the virus. Most of the time that does not happen and any scientist that claims there is no link is wrong (or has been misinterpreted) but any scientist saying that temperature and damp does not cause the cold is correct.

Ian

 

[Alan Hobson]

links are not worth a thing

correlations are not causations

Have to firmly disagree there. Links can be very useful: so, for example, knowing in advance there is a link between going outside with wet hair and coming down with a cold can turn out to be very useful knowledge indeed!

Also, scientists being wrong about links, when they're adamant they're right, gives an interesting insight into their fallibility.

So there are two immediate reasons why links are important.

 

[Alan Hobson]

"any scientist that claims there is no link is wrong"

Exactly my point, Ian, thus showing the fallibility of scientists. And if they're fallible in this area....

"(or has been misinterpreted)"

Nope, I haven't been misinterpreting them. For example, the one two weeks ago was openly saying that you can go out with wet hair and you will be in no danger of going down with a cold. He was therefore clearly indicating he felt there was no link at all. And as you admit above, he is therefore wrong.

 

[Richard D]

Nope, I haven't been misinterpreting them. For example, the one two weeks ago was openly saying that you can go out with wet hair and you will be in no danger of going down with a cold. He was therefore clearly indicating he felt there was no link at all. And as you admit above, he is therefore wrong.

I'm not really sure why I'm still going on with this arguement, but just to get this analogy out of the way can you provide a source where this scientist says this (or was he merely the newspapers self appointed expert rather than actual scientist). Can you provide a source that shows this theory about cold weather has actually been proven under laboratory conditions and is not still a theory?

Regards Richard

 

[James Lowther]

Exactly my point, Ian, thus showing the fallibility of scientists. And if they're fallible in this area....

But Alan,
the analogy only holds if the entire research community was wrong. Individual scientists are always capable of making mistakes, but there is almost always another one waiting in the wings to show them up if they're wrong. Often situations are so hard to unravel that the research community might be split into two camps down the middle, but everyone wrong simultaneously? Not very likely.
James

 

[Nightranger]

"any scientist that claims there is no link is wrong"

Exactly my point, Ian, thus showing the fallibility of scientists. And if they're fallible in this area....

"(or has been misinterpreted)"

Nope, I haven't been misinterpreting them. For example, the one two weeks ago was openly saying that you can go out with wet hair and you will be in no danger of going down with a cold. He was therefore clearly indicating he felt there was no link at all. And as you admit above, he is therefore wrong.

Alan, this is getting silly because we are back to the "what I want to believe" argument. Surely, this is like throwing out baby with the bath water if we want a more appropriate analogy and to bring this discussion around. Forgive me if I am wrong but are you saying all the research done on predator relationships is wrong except the paper Anthony quoted (leaving aside the fact that it says something very different anyway)? I am not sure that I can accept that your point is a word for word quote BTW but we are getting into a bit of a dead zone. Let us take this back to the example I gave above. I say that house sparrows are not declining because I see loads everyday of my life. Prove to me that they are declining.

Ian