Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (4 Viewers)

[Russ Jones]

Jane, I have tried and tried to get this point over.

As a teacher, i'm well aware that sometimes you just have to face the fact that some people (for whatever reason) are not at the stage where they can deal with certain concepts. This is one that IBWO believers have particular problems with and it belies their unscientific, accepting nature.

Tim

Tim,

You are a saint for trying to get this point across time and time again, I don't know where you find the patience...or time for that matter. Its not a difficult thing to grasp though and I suspect most anyone with a fully functioning brain over the age of 10 understands that you can't prove its extinct. With that said I wonder what it is exactly you are trying to prove? You blast the sightings, evidence and reports that are posted to no end. Since we've covered the fact that it is impossible to prove its extiction over and over again you might be as well to just let the researches and enthusiasts do their work free from the insults, character assasinations and conspiracy thoeries. I am not sure there is a single member that contributes to this thread that has displayed a less scientific and more antagonistic nature than yourself.

Cheers,

Russ

 

[Ilya Maclean]

...To find reasonable doubt that the IBWO exists, the jury would have to conclude that it is reasonable that every bit of scientific evidence can be reasonably explained by something else and every single witness is a fool or a fraud.

Yes, but (shamelessly copying the Carl Sagan quote on Tom Nelson's blog) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is up to those that claim to have seen it to prove that it exists rather than the other way round (for obvious reasons such as not being able to prove a negative for the 900th + time). Therefore it is not a question of finding reasonable doubt that the IBWO exists, but of proving beyond all reasonable doubt that it does!

Tim, I think you might have to explain that not proving a negative thing just one more time.....

 

[Ivory Bill]

Any prospects @ all

Tim,

You are a saint for trying to get this point across time and time again, I don't know where you find the patience...or time for that matter. Its not a difficult thing to grasp though and I suspect most anyone with a fully functioning brain over the age of 10 understands that you can't prove its extinct. With that said I wonder what it is exactly you are trying to prove? You blast the sightings, evidence and reports that are posted to no end. Since we've covered the fact that it is impossible to prove its extiction over and over again you might be as well to just let the researches and enthusiasts do their work free from the insults, character assasinations and conspiracy thoeries. I am not sure there is a single member that contributes to this thread that has displayed a less scientific and more antagonistic nature than yourself.

Cheers,

Russ

Hi Russ
in that I am not on here much do you believe to any degree
that this bird has survived & that a population would have gone undetected for as long as it seemingly has if it were so ?
I seem to waft back and forth that is there are stretches I believe and others
that I pretty much feel the opposite. Depends on how convincing the information I am reading is.
is.
Shawn

 

[Russ Jones]

Yes, but (shamelessly copying the Carl Sagan quote on Tom Nelson's blog) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is up to those that claim to have seen it to prove that it exists rather than the other way round (for obvious reasons such as not being able to prove a negative for the 900th + time). Therefore it is not a question of finding reasonable doubt that the IBWO exists, but of proving beyond all reasonable doubt that it does!

Tim, I think you might have to explain that not proving a negative thing just one more time.....

Ilya,

The folks that provide the funding for research are convinced, that is the most important thing. I'm certainly glad they are convinced too because I love to see all of that habitat bought up and protected. Nothing but good has come out of the IBWO "rediscovery" as far as I'm concerned....except of course for the degradation of some peoples morals and respectability. I do appreciate your posts, you come across as someone who is respectable and respectful... i just wish there were more with this personality thats all.

Cheers,

Russ

 

[Jane Turner]

Yes, but (shamelessly copying the Carl Sagan quote on Tom Nelson's blog) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is up to those that claim to have seen it to prove that it exists rather than the other way round (for obvious reasons such as not being able to prove a negative for the 900th + time). Therefore it is not a question of finding reasonable doubt that the IBWO exists, but of proving beyond all reasonable doubt that it does!

Tim, I think you might have to explain that not proving a negative thing just one more time.....

You know extraordinary evidence would be nice.... but as yet we haven't even seen adequate evidence, and I don't mean adequate to prove the existence of a rare bird, I mean adequate to prove the existence of a very minor state rarity... ok ok the Hick's shopping list description would be passable for a minor state rarity .....probably.

 

[emupilot]

Very few claim to have proven that the IBWO exists, and I don't think it has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Alot of evidence has been presented, yet skeptics* should not be bothered to examine it or refute it because there is no claim of proof? We are not asking skeptics to prove the IBWO does not exist - we are asking skeptics to give a reasonable alternate explanation for all the evidence presented, including many first hand sightings. If you don't want to bother with examining the evidence, then spare us your assertion that numerous people are fools or frauds. Hiding behind platitudes won't make the eyewitness accounts go away.

* I'm defining a "skeptic" as someone who asserts the definite or probable extinction of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, as you have.

Yes, but (shamelessly copying the Carl Sagan quote on Tom Nelson's blog) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is up to those that claim to have seen it to prove that it exists rather than the other way round (for obvious reasons such as not being able to prove a negative for the 900th + time). Therefore it is not a question of finding reasonable doubt that the IBWO exists, but of proving beyond all reasonable doubt that it does!

Tim, I think you might have to explain that not proving a negative thing just one more time.....

 

[MMinNY]

That's your opinion about the evidence, and you're certainly entitled to it. Don't confuse your opinion with fact, however. The evidence was enough for the Arkansas committee, albeit on a divided vote. It was also enough for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was sufficient for publication in a peer reviewed journal.

Oh, and the extraordinary evidence thing is rubbish for reasons I've addressed repeatedly.

You know extraordinary evidence would be nice.... but as yet we haven't even seen adequate evidence, and I don't mean adequate to prove the existence of a rare bird, I mean adequate to prove the existence of a very minor state rarity... ok ok the Hick's shopping list description would be passable for a minor state rarity .....probably.

 

[Ilya Maclean]

* I'm defining a "skeptic" as someone who asserts the definite or probable extinction of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, as you have.

I've actually generally avoided asserting too strongly that it is extinct and have even advocated precautionary action on occasion. In my case I'm sceptical of the evidence to date.

 

[Sidewinder]

Personally, I decidely lean toward the "believers" side, but I am still open-minded enough to recognize problems inherent in either position, including mine. I think there needs to be more here who agree to respectfully disagree with other opinions...even of those who disrespectfully disagree with others (how more convoluted could I state this?). Tim, you indicate that you are a teacher. I trust that you teach your students how to treat other viewpoints with respect.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Tim, you indicate that you are a teacher. I trust that you teach your students how to treat other viewpoints with respect.

Of course

I also teach them to sniff out the bs, think for themsleves, be objective and ask the difficult questions.

I respect the viewpoint that the bird may possibly just still be hanging on somewhere in some undisturbed and little visited area. But not the people who tell me it has been thoroughly documented already and get very indignant when people question or point out flaws in the 'evidence'. To a genuine birder, a great deal of the evidence is laughable - cruel maybe, but that's the view - and some is downright delusional. Of course, it may still be there. But nothing has even given me cause for hope yet. The fact that people keep claiming kents, knocks and 'detections' and yet no one seems to be ale to find a single bird and view it again (Sibley's redundancy) saddens me. Birds, science, conservation and any remaining IBWOs surely deserve better. I wish these people would just do their expeditions and report back when they have concrete proof, not these 'detections' that seem skewed towards inexperienced 'birders'.

 

[Sidewinder]

[Regarding involvement by another academic group] hmmm MSU.. you are getting close.. and yep.. forestry school........

Would it involve, perchance, a completely different location from where the present well-publicized searches are focussed (Big Woods, Choctawhatchee, Congaree, Big Thicket)?

 

[emupilot]

I've actually generally avoided asserting too strongly that it is extinct and have even advocated precautionary action on occasion. In my case I'm sceptical of the evidence to date.

#9308:

I don't believe IBWOs still exist. I may be wrong, but that doesn't make me anti-conservation.

I accept an assertion of "I don't know", since that technically applies to anyone who hasn't seen it for themselves at this point. I do (obviously) have a problem with assertions that "I don't believe IBWOs still exist", particularly if you are unwilling to step forward and assert the logical conclusion that everyone who has reported seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker is a fool or a fraud.

 

[Jane Turner]

That's your opinion about the evidence, and you're certainly entitled to it. Don't confuse your opinion with fact, however. The evidence was enough for the Arkansas committee, albeit on a divided vote. It was also enough for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was sufficient for publication in a peer reviewed journal.

Oh, and the extraordinary evidence thing is rubbish for reasons I've addressed repeatedly.

This is an area where I do have extensive experience. Unless there are descriptions above and beyond what is published I can state unequivocally that the evidence is insufficient unless the level of evidence required to verify a record of IBWO in the US is substantially less rigorous than required for a UK county rarity committee.

 

[Tuna Slushie]

This is an area where I do have extensive experience. Unless there are descriptions above and beyond what is published I can state unequivocally that the evidence is insufficient unless the level of evidence required to verify a record of IBWO in the US is substantially less rigorous than required for a UK county rarity committee.

You are confusing your opinion with fact. And less rigorous or not, the opinions of relevant government agencies and so on do not depend on your definition or any definition other than their own as proof. That's even completely aside from the opinions of many of us here.

 

[John DiFool]

Scientific evidence is something that can be measured: sounds, images, DNA, etc. By that standard, the existence of the IBWO is certainly not proven. To leave it at that, however, is to ignore the rest of the evidence, namely first hand observation. If the IBWO were on trial for its very existence, there would be playback and competing analysis of double-knocks, kents, disputable images, big cavities etc. Then there would be a parade of a dozen or so witnesses, some with better vision than others, some with better looks at the suspect, some highly respected, and some unknown. To find reasonable doubt that the IBWO exists, the jury would have to conclude that it is reasonable that every bit of scientific evidence can be reasonably explained by something else and every single witness is a fool or a fraud.

The problem is a need some have to come down decisively on one extreme or the
other before all the facts are in. What's wrong with suspending judgement?
Why do we need to have a "trial" right now this very instant? I think the real
issue is how there's a lot of people out there who have trouble dealing with
ambiguity and uncertainty, along with the need to label anyone and everyone.
Personally I'm perfectly content to sit and wait without making silly pronounce-
ments and then calling them "scientific." A little humility would go a long way.

 

[Jane Turner]

You are confusing your opinion with fact. And less rigorous or not, the opinions of relevant government agencies and so on do not depend on your definition or any definition other than their own as proof. That's even completely aside from the opinions of many of us here.

Its not my definition or opinion, its fact. The existing public evidence is inadequate to verify identification.

The fact that a lot of people would dearly love/desperately need the species to be proven to exist does not mean that it does not exist.... but neither does it remove the need for the most basic verification of claims.

 

[John Mariani]

Scientific evidence is something that can be measured: sounds, images, DNA, etc. By that standard, the existence of the IBWO is certainly not proven. To leave it at that, however, is to ignore the rest of the evidence, namely first hand observation. If the IBWO were on trial for its very existence, there would be playback and competing analysis of double-knocks, kents, disputable images, big cavities etc. Then there would be a parade of a dozen or so witnesses, some with better vision than others, some with better looks at the suspect, some highly respected, and some unknown. To find reasonable doubt that the IBWO exists, the jury would have to conclude that it is reasonable that every bit of scientific evidence can be reasonably explained by something else and every single witness is a fool or a fraud.

Tim, those of us in the unwashed masses do actually understand the scientific points skeptics make. We understand that it is impossible to prove a negative. We have heard from skeptics about the scientific evidence - some very reasonable arguments, some less so - but what we have never heard is a reasonable explanation of why every single person who has reported an Ivory-billed Woodpecker is a fool or a fraud. I guess it is our "unscientific, accepting nature" that makes us think it's possible to identify a bird without getting its DNA.

Once again, why frame it as "fool or a fraud"? Mistaken identification doesn't require the observer to be either. That's a straw man arguement.

Every birder makes mistakes, especially when brief views don't allow prolonged study. Once you weed out all the reports that involve brief glimpses (mostly of birds in flight) there aren't really that many IBWO sightings that have compelling details, and even fewer that some reasonable doubt can't be cast upon.

The jury trial thing would be kind of interesting though, wonder who the dozen or so witnesses would be? And how many would be shredded under cross examination...

 

[John Mariani]

This is an area where I do have extensive experience. Unless there are descriptions above and beyond what is published I can state unequivocally that the evidence is insufficient unless the level of evidence required to verify a record of IBWO in the US is substantially less rigorous than required for a UK county rarity committee.

Wow - counties have their own rarities committees over there? I'm impressed!
I don't think we have committees below the state level anywhere this side of the pond (could be wrong about that, but not by much). But then we don't have any equivalent to Birdfair either. Maybe someday birding will be as big here...

You know, there are those records that pass muster with a rarities committee....and later, after being dismissed in private for years finally get rejected on a second go round...

 

[Ilya Maclean]

I accept an assertion of "I don't know", since that technically applies to anyone who hasn't seen it for themselves at this point. I do (obviously) have a problem with assertions that "I don't believe IBWOs still exist", particularly if you are unwilling to step forward and assert the logical conclusion that everyone who has reported seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker is a fool or a fraud.

I did say in that post that "I don't believe the IBWO still exists", but the context in which it was said was to demonstrate the link between being a conservationist and disbelieving in something, not really to make a point about the persistence or not of IBWOs. Also, I did add "I may be wong".

Incidentally though, beliefs and assertions are not the same thing. I may feel it necessary to justify my assertions, but I really don’t feel the need to justify my beliefs. That difference is precisely the reason why I would never assert that everyone who has reported seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker is a fool or a fraud, even if in private I were to believe that that is the case.

 

[humminbird]

Wow - counties have their own rarities committees over there? I'm impressed!
I don't think we have committees below the state level anywhere this side of the pond (could be wrong about that, but not by much). But then we don't have any equivalent to Birdfair either. Maybe someday birding will be as big here...

You know, there are those records that pass muster with a rarities committee....and later, after being dismissed in private for years finally get rejected on a second go round...

Most local chapters of the Audubon Society have their own rarities committees in Texas John.

Mark