• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)

Bonsaibirder said:
No, it needs to be of a live bird.
I notice by the two very recent posts by you (this one to emupilot, and one to me), that you aren't at all insulting.
 
Last edited:
Tim Allwood said:
Evidence and proof are not synonymous

btw is synonomous a synonym of synonymous? or just a minor oversight?

eh Mr Clever Clogs?

Tim


So now you are going to argue with Meriam-Webster Tim? Webster uses evidence to define proof and vice verse.
 
Peregrinator said:
I'm sorry your character has been attacked so violently on this forum.
Thanks, but it's really not a big deal. I know what I have seen and that my data proves it. I have the satisfaction of knowing that I have had more success than probably anyone else who has searched for this species. I'm not concerned about trying to convince anyone. My main goal was to help find other populations of this species. I have done that, and the people that matter know there are ivorybills in the Pearl. It won't matter to me if the skeptics never have the satisfaction of knowing that the ivorybill still exists.
 
There's something about Bill Smith's photo that I forgot to mention. The way the bird is perched didn't seem natural. I changed my mind about this when I found a spot in my video where the ivorybill is perched in the same way.
 
I've got to side with Tim on this. How's that for a first? The Random House Dicitionary, for one, is much better on the distinction between evidence and proof. They are not synonymous, and it boggles my mind that a couple of dictionaries treat them as if they were, or at least were damned close.

My old, Shorter OED is pretty good as well. The first definition of "proof" is "That which makes good or proves a statement; evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or prove a belief." For my part, I'd delete the "or contributing", but I'm not a lexicographer.


humminbird said:
So now you are going to argue with Meriam-Webster Tim? Webster uses evidence to define proof and vice verse.
 
humminbird said:
So now you are going to argue with Meriam-Webster Tim? Webster uses evidence to define proof and vice verse.


I'm sure people can check their dictionaries if they're unsure. Lots of people have been executed on the basis of evidence that wasn't, shall we say... er proof? If evidence were proof wouldn't virtualy every criminal in a court of law be found guilty? I mean, how many cases go to court without evidence?

and it's vice versa

Tim
 
Tim Allwood said:
I'm sure people can check their dictionaries if they're unsure. Lots of people have been executed on the basis of evidence that wasn't, shall we say... er proof? If evidence were proof wouldn't virtualy every criminal in a court of law be found guilty? I mean, how many cases go to court without evidence?

and it's vice versa

Tim

When looking for a synonym one uses a thesaurus, not a dictionary. The thesaurus at m-w.com shows "evidence" as a synonym for "proof".
 
humminbird said:
When looking for a synonym one uses a thesaurus, not a dictionary. The thesaurus at m-w.com shows "evidence" as a synonym for "proof".

I just hope that I'm never tried in the US - it was bad enough when I was told to get out within seven days...
|:S|
 
colonelboris said:
I just hope that I'm never tried in the US - it was bad enough when I was told to get out within seven days...
|:S|


Neither evidence nor proof, nor come to think of it trial, are actually needed to lock people up in the US these days. Which brings us back again to Cuban Ivorybills...
 
To get pedantic about it, there are contexts in which evidence and proof can be used as synonyms, as can sand and beach or water and ocean, for example, but no lawyer or careful writer would suggest that the words have the same general meaning. Something can be both evidence and proof, but evidence is not necessarily proof. The Luneau video is a case in point. To be a little simplistic about it: the video is evidence; the furore is about whether it's proof and/or what it "proves".

I have refrained from posting here lately because there really isn't anything more to say until some new information comes out (and because I'm sick of arguing the same points over and over). I think this discussion provides clear and convincing evidence that the topic has been exhausted for the time being. And with that, I return to lurk mode.
 
Last edited:
Peregrinator said:
I notice by the two very recent posts by you (this one to emupilot, and one to me), that you aren't at all insulting.

Not sure why you think this is rude..

bonsaibirder said:
emupilot said:
Many have presumed this to be a decoy (along with an early 1970's photo), which means a photo would have to be of a flying bird to be acceptable to skeptics.

No, it needs to be of a live bird.

Just correcting an illogical statement.
 
Tim Allwood said:
then it's wrong

plain and simple

don't believe it cos it's on the net


Wellll EXCUSE me sir but Meriam Webster is the equivalent for the US language of the Oxford dictionary that you Brits place such a high regard on. You stated that the two words were not synonymous. I pointed out that in fact a recognized source world wide accepts them as such.

The fact that you Brits, in your language do not believe they are does not make it so.

Yes, it depends on the usage as pointed out before, but your stating the webster is wrong would be as rediculous as me saying Oxford is wrong for accepting the spelling COLOUR or TOMATOE or FAVOUR or SKEPTIC.

Again, it is wrong cause I say it is wrong. GIVE ME A BREAK.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top