Ivory-Billed Woodpecker continued (1 Viewer)

[bottomlands]

People that ‘believe that IB are extant because they have seen them‘ are basing their belief on a scientifically unproven phenomenon (IMO!) - prove that you have seen an IB with your own eyes!

Why do people who have witnessed something need to scientifically prove to themselves that it happened?

 

[Welsh Peregrine]

I suppose it comes down to why it matters. If there are still Ivory bills, then they have managed to survive as a population without human help. If they are proven to exist, would this lead to changes that could aid their recovery? In this case, I would argue that proof matters and no avenue to demonstrate this proof should be ignored. Otherwise, it is just interesting discussion which may say something about rare birds, and/or may say something about human psychology.

 

[Deb Burhinus]

What worries me is that someone can be told of multiple IB sightings at the Pearl River, be informed of the very limited searches there, understand that the area is mature bottom land forest of a million square kilometers, and somehow firmly believe that a single pair of IB could absolutely not go unphotographed. That just boggles my mind.

It is a bit circular - even by the searchers own admissions, each piece of evidence on its own could fall but united they stand

• acoustic ‘evidence’ - inconclusive
• bark peelings/bore holes - inconclusive
• uncorroborated sightings - inconclusive
• Therefore blurry videos stills and even more blurry photographs interpreted with an IB bias which supports conclusiveness of acoustic evidence, bark peelings/bore holes and gives credence to sightings otherwise uncorroborated.

I watched those 2005 Pearl River videos that you posted of a putative IB flying down the river towards the observer and thought, as I watched it, someone could quite easily construct a similarly forensic argument as to why it was not an IB.

 

[ZanderII]

Circular logic: If A then B. If B then A. What you have presented is not circular logic so, no, I'm not worried by it.

What worries me is that someone can be told of multiple IB sightings at the Pearl River, be informed of the very limited searches there, understand that the area is mature bottom land forest of a half-million square kilometers, and somehow firmly believe that a single pair of IB could absolutely not go unphotographed. That just boggles my mind.

Is it possible - yes they could evade detection assuming they always kept to areas that no-one ever visits, But is that a valid assumption? The problem is where did that pair come from? Why weren't they unreported there before? Just the one pair? Do they breed? If so where do they offspring disperse to? A pair can't have persisted on their own for 50 years so what about other birds elsewhere? Why does no-one see them well enough to prove their existence?

It may be half a million square kilometers but it is a linear feature and is still well birded, here is a map of eBird records of Pileated Woodpecker from the lower Pearl River Swamp and environs.

 

[bottomlands]

It is a bit circular - even by the searchers own admissions, each piece of evidence on its own could fall but united they stand

• acoustic ‘evidence’ - inconclusive
• bark peelings/bore holes - inconclusive
• uncorroborated sightings - inconclusive
• Therefore blurry videos stills and even more blurry photographs interpreted with an IB bias which supports conclusiveness of acoustic evidence, bark peelings/bore holes and gives credence to sightings otherwise uncorroborated.

I watched those 2005 Pearl River videos that you posted of a putative IB flying down the river towards the observer and thought, as I watched it, someone could quite easily construct a similarly forensic argument as to why it was not an IB.

It is not at all circular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

I did not post any videos. I am not claiming the Collins videos show IB.

 

[ZanderII]

Circular logic: If A then B. If B then A. What you have presented is not circular logic so, no, I'm not worried by it.

What worries me is that someone can be told of multiple IB sightings at the Pearl River, be informed of the very limited searches there, understand that the area is mature bottom land forest of a half-million square kilometers, and somehow firmly believe that a single pair of IB could absolutely not go unphotographed. That just boggles my mind.

Circular because you have no proof that A has any relation to B, you assume that A has a bearing on B but that is unproven.

 

[ZanderII]

It is not at all circular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

I did not post any videos. I am not claiming the Collins videos show IB.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with

Begin - IBWO extant - evidence = bark scaling.

Begin - sasquatch exists - evidence = footprints

 

[bottomlands]

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with

Begin - IBWO extant - evidence = bark scaling.

Begin - sasquatch exists - evidence = footprints

Nope, that is not what is happening.

Begin - Are IB extant? It would be really great if they are. I will search where there have been reported sightings. Hey, look, here is some bark scaling that fits the historical descriptions of what IB scaling should look like. I've never seen it anywhere else. I think that combined with the sightings, it is pretty good evidence that IB have been here.

 

[ZanderII]

Just to 'drum home' the level of observer coverage - and I assume that most searchers are not banging checklists into eBird but are wrangling with drones or paddles.

 

[ZanderII]

Nope, that is not what is happening.

Begin - Are IB extant? It would be really great if they are. I will search where there have been reported sightings. Hey, look, here is some bark scaling that fits the historical descriptions of what IB scaling should look like. I've never seen it anywhere else. I think that combined with the sightings, it is pretty good evidence that IB have been here.

You say it isn't like that, but it is for some. Mike Collins keeps writing angrier and angrier diatribes whilst the failure to offer any proof becomes more and more acute. He should be revising his certainty, not doubling down and claiming that conservation has failed.

 

[ZanderII]

You say it isn't like that, but it is for some. Mike Collins keeps writing angrier and angrier diatribes whilst the failure to offer any proof becomes more and more acute. He should be revising his certainty, not doubling down and claiming that conservation has failed.

The cognitive dissonance in that paper is mind-bending (Collins 2019), my emphasis in bold

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker would be a good candidate for the most elusive bird in the world on the basis of the following set of facts (which is unique to this species): (1) it has a long history of rediscoveries; (2) nobody has ever managed to obtain a clear photo without knowing the location of an active nest; (3) many sightings have been reported but nobody has managed to obtain a clear photo during the past several decades; (4) ornithologists were unable to obtain a clear photo during intensive multi-year searches at sites where they were convinced these birds were present; and (5) it is a species of great interest that resides in a region that is easily accessible to a large number of bird watchers. Clear photos were obtained at the nest in the Singer Tract, but photos obtained away from the nest during that study are of poor quality.

1) this makes no sense for a large woodpecker. Full stop.

2) see comments about tech

3) also see sasquatch, sightings are irrelevant unless they match a pattern of confirmed records

4) massive search effort = no proof

5) yes, it is easily accessible, this is the southern USA and acknowledgement that even with low tech gear from 70 years ago people got a photo of the birds.

 

[bottomlands]

The cognitive dissonance in that paper is mind-bending (Collins 2019), my emphasis in bold

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker would be a good candidate for the most elusive bird in the world on the basis of the following set of facts (which is unique to this species): (1) it has a long history of rediscoveries; (2) nobody has ever managed to obtain a clear photo without knowing the location of an active nest; (3) many sightings have been reported but nobody has managed to obtain a clear photo during the past several decades; (4) ornithologists were unable to obtain a clear photo during intensive multi-year searches at sites where they were convinced these birds were present; and (5) it is a species of great interest that resides in a region that is easily accessible to a large number of bird watchers. Clear photos were obtained at the nest in the Singer Tract, but photos obtained away from the nest during that study are of poor quality.

1) this makes no sense for a large woodpecker. Full stop.

2) untrue - see images from Cuba and moreover this was from an age when camera gear was not up to task (pre-1950)

3) also see sasquatch, sightings are irrelevant unless they match a pattern of confirmed records

4) massive search effort = no proof

5) yes, it is easily accessible, this is the southern USA and acknowledgement that even with low tech gear from 70 years ago people got a photo of the birds.

I'm not here to argue for or in defense of his papers and videos. But perhaps you have encouraged 1TS to return and discuss them with you.

 

[Deb Burhinus]

I did not post any videos. I am not claiming the Collins videos show IB.

I do apologise Bottomlands (sorry but I’m beginning to find it weird having a legthy discussion with someone calling themselves ’bottomlands’ - 😳 it was Motiheal who posted the video in the Rare Birds Information thread (I’m not sure why) but the forensic analysis was pretty dire and tainted with selection bias.

 

[ZanderII]

I'm not here to argue for or in defense of his papers and videos. But perhaps you have encouraged 1TS to return and discuss them with you.

But feel free to refute my points which have been repeated ad nauseum here and are the elephant in the living room.

 

[bottomlands]

But feel free to refute my points which have been repeated ad nauseum here and are the elephant in the living room.

I will leave that to 1TS or Mike Collins, if they are so inclined. I am not offering my opinion on the Collins papers or videos, except to say that I understand why you and others do not find them conclusive. Instead, I will spend a little time later today, if possible, answering your earlier questions to me about the Pearl. I hope that is enough for you.

 

[dantheman]

But feel free to refute my points which have been repeated ad nauseum here and are the elephant in the living room.

Surely that should be Woolly Mammoth? - there's bound to be some still kicking around somewhere ... ;-)

 

[Hauksen]

Hi,

You say it isn't like that, but it is for some. Mike Collins keeps writing angrier and angrier diatribes whilst the failure to offer any proof becomes more and more acute. He should be revising his certainty, not doubling down and claiming that conservation has failed.

That's the article that completely fails to support its central claim:

Only two large woodpeckers occur in the region, but the flap rate of the bird in the video is about ten standard deviations greater than the mean flap rate of the Pileated Woodpecker. Ivory-billed Woodpecker is the only remaining possibility

For this to be even something like a reasonable claim to make, it would be necessary to support the implicit assumption that the distribution of flap rates is Gaussian. If it isn't, the flap rate claim is easily recognizable as wishful thinking.

Regards,

Henning

 

[bottomlands]

I do apologise Bottomlands (sorry but I’m beginning to find it weird having a legthy discussion with someone calling themselves ’bottomlands’ - 😳

Yeah, I should have considered that. You can call me BL for Bottom Lands or BeLiever if you like, or Bill, or something else. Your choice.

 

[dantheman]

I do apologise Bottomlands (sorry but I’m beginning to find it weird having a legthy discussion with someone calling themselves ’bottomlands’ - 😳 it was Motiheal who posted the video in the Rare Birds Information thread (I’m not sure why) but the forensic analysis was pretty dire and tainted with selection bias.

Sorry, just noticed this freudian(?) typo ... ;-)

 

[bottomlands]

Just to 'drum home' the level of observer coverage - and I assume that most searchers are not banging checklists into eBird but are wrangling with drones or paddles.

View attachment 1367187

Before I try to answer your questions, let's discuss this ebird info. It sure does look like a LOT of birding going on, doesn't it? I mean all those huge blue icons, some with fire symbols suggesting loads of pileated sightings. Wow.

Now let's consider one period of time, 2019, the last full year before Covid. Going through each entry, looking at the number of birds reported, and taking into account that there were some groups of people birding together and likely reporting the same birds, I give a ballpark estimate of 100 pileated woodpeckers spotted and reported during fewer than 100 man-visits in the habitat during 2019. Is that really a lot for approximately 500,000 square kilometers? Let's see...

Studies suggest (if memory serves) that there are approximately six pairs of pileated per square mile, which is about 2.6 square kilometers, to be found in good habitat. By my calculations, there should be about 2,307,692 pileated at the Pearl River. During 2019, approximately 100 were documented, or about 0.005% of the number of pileated that could potentially be found. 99.995% of birds went unreported. In other words, 1 out of every 2000 pileated were seen and documented during 2019, while birders missed 1,999 out of every 2000.

I may have failed to carry the one or something. Please do correct me if the math or logic is wrong.

BL