geswæpabinn
Because we were having a little trouble staying on topic, and abiding by our rules of engagement…
January 20, 2001
126 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://designparadigm.blogsome.com/2001/01/20/47/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Freawaru
So, uh, is that how Jesus tells you to treat people who are trying to educate you by pointing out plainly and clearly (1) why you are wrong and (2) why your failure to admit your errors makes you look like a liar and an idiot?
I’d like to see where this sort of behavior is promoted in the Bible because it seems very common among ID-peddling Christians: when trapped, simply shed crocodile tears about the “incivility” of your opponents arguments.
That’s “pathetic,” Freawaru. Again: not an ad hominem. Just an observation.
So let’s talk about “self-respecting college students.” Over the weekend, I attended a symposium at Berkeley where scientists from around the world gathered to pay tribute to a recently deceased faculty member. Among those present were Nobel laureate Arthur Kornberg (discoverer of DNA polymerase), Bob Lehman (author of one of the most widely used biochemistry textbooks and a pioneer in the field of nucleic acids and enzymology), Pat Brown (professor at Stanford and leader in the field of comparative genomics) and many other distinguished professors and, of course, gradudate students.
Not only did many of these graduate students speak to me, but we all shared several hearty laughs at the expense of “intelligent design.”
Did you get that? When real scientists get together to discuss real scientific data and the real-world implications of that data, real scientists MAKE JOKES about “intelligent design” and LAUGH at the expese of “intelligent design.”
Now, I ask you again: are the world’s honest and sincere and hard-working scientists (1) deluded or (2) is it some kind of a conspiracy?
Just answer the question, Freawaru, then we can move the discussion forward instead of wallowing in the filth of your rhetorical word games.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 12, 2006 @ 6:40 am
Did you get that? When real scientists get together to discuss real scientific data and the real-world implications of that data, real scientists MAKE JOKES about “intelligent design” and LAUGH at the expese of “intelligent design.”
But … but … but … he has science on his side! He just told us so! Haven’t y’all gotten the messge?
Comment by Don Baccus — June 12, 2006 @ 10:03 am
Amy said:
While I don’t feel the need to heap more on the pile of ridicule here, Amy’s correct in her conclusion. IDers (including the present blog) are generally adept at these word games, but I’ve never seen an ounce of sincere interest in conducting science amongst ID proponents. The closest any of the ID rhetoric gets to honesty is when prefaced by disclaimers about it being purely philosophical and speculative.
So you’ll have to excuse us for being a little upset when IDers such as yourselves whine that ID is scientific, that there is a controversy, that the demarcation line is inapplicable to ID, that biologists are uncritical of their own work, that there really is data supporting ID, etc. etc.
I know I’m repeating myself these days, but I get no response when I say this: don’t give us rationalizations or slippery rhetoric, give us cold, hard scientific data to back up your claims, or don’t make such claims at all.
And by the way, I’m still curious - what college-level biology courses have you guys taken?
Comment by Dan — June 12, 2006 @ 10:10 am
Amy–
Perhaps I came across harsher then I meant to be–
I really didn’t mean to insinuate that you are such an awful person no-one would ever speak to you; I haven’t enough information to make that sort of a judgement, and I’ll take your word for it that you’re quite collegial in person. My point was simply that your posts on the blog were not such; if it is really your intention to be part of any meaningful discussion, you might want to reconsider some aspects of your tone. Maybe just keep in mind there are real people on the other side of the computer screen.
Comment by Freawaru — June 12, 2006 @ 10:26 am
I know, I know. I ought to believe it because there are so many smart people who do. And some of those people (horrors!) might laugh at me if I don’t!
Really, I don’t live in Antartica. But– and perhaps this is a fault– I don’t take very much on authority. If an idea can’t stand up to criticism, it isn’t worth keeping. And if some theory doesn’t have sound reasoning and logic behind it it doesn’t matter who believes it.
I have no less respect for great thinkers or scientists; but any look at the “history of knowledge” shows that everyone– even the smartest among us– are wrong about many things all of the time. And in science there is no truth-by-consensus.
Comment by Freawaru — June 12, 2006 @ 10:52 am
Fair enough. And yet, do you have any demonstrable evidence that does not fit into Descent With Modification or Natural Selection as a driving force behind Evolution?
Any experimental test, any “rabbit in the pre-cambrian strata,” any inexplicable changes in populations at any level of biology?
Or do you just have incredulity?
If an explanation fits the evidence, you would consider it factual, correct? (apparently not)
So you’re fine to say mere authority is inadequate an explanation for you (that’s being a good scientist), but incredulity without supporting evidence is no basis for a “controversy.”
Comment by Dan — June 12, 2006 @ 11:24 am
I mean, seriously, do you think we as biologists go around saying “Well, Professor Smith says this, so it must be true?” No. We’re shown the evidence behind “Prof. Smith’s” claims, and learn how to understand/explain how the evidence leads us to certain scientific conclusions.
And you can’t point out how the conclusions of biology are false, can you?
Oh, and I’m still curious as to exactly what biology courses you’ve taken (I know you’re swamped with Q’s right now, but it’s a simple request).
Comment by Dan — June 12, 2006 @ 11:41 am
Well, there’s no theory of ID. There’s no logic to it, the basic argument is “if biology hasn’t explained ‘X’ yet, then ‘X’ is designed”. Something that simplistic can’t stand up to criticism.
Yet … here you are. Convinced that life is designed by a (wink, wink) unspecified designer.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 12:02 am
I don’t take very much on authority. If an idea can’t stand up to criticism, it isn’t worth keeping. And if some theory doesn’t have sound reasoning and logic behind it it doesn’t matter who believes it.
Since you refused to answer my question directly, I’ll help you mouth the words you seem incapable of writing on your own: all the world’s scientists are deluded.
All the world’s professional biologists — all the names on those thousands upon thousands of papers in PubMed and other databases, the papers that continue to pile up and up and up and up — all of these people are not capable of “sound reasoning and logic.”
Right? Because if they were not deluded they would understand that Freawaru’s criticisms of evolutionary biology are devastating and cause for some serious reflection.
So tell us Freawaru — what are your credentials again? Like other commenters here, I am not persuaded by your “arguments” nor am I impressed by your ability to articulate those “arguments” in a coherent manner. So if you’re not lying and peddling garbage for Jesus, what is it that you are trying to teach us and why should anyone interested in learning facts about biology pay attention to YOU or any of your cohorts in this “IDEA club”?
Please answer the question.
Oh, and I have to add: whenever worshippers of an extraordinarily popular “holy book” make speeches about how “anti-authoritarian” they are, I vomit in my mouth a little bit.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 12:35 am
I should also point out John Sanford (Cornell Professor) outlines ideas which are in principle testable regarding the trajectory and information dynamics in biological genomes
Is this the John Sanford that thinks the earth “might be” 10,000 years old?
You know, that claim is testable too. And it’s been tested. And the answer is that the earth isn’t 10,000 years old. It’s a whole heck of a lot older. And no honest scientist disputes this basic fact.
What psychological pressures would compel John Sanford to publically make such a ridiculous and reputation-destroying claim is a far more interesting question than the one (poorly) articulated by Sal.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 7:04 am
PvM
I hope Freawaru will avoid citing any “authority.” After all, why should we trust them?
Hee hee.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 11:52 am
William Dembski points out that his design detection methods
A quick analysis of the facts on planet earth will show that Dembski is pretty much considered a discredited buffoon by all but a few diehard ID peddlers.
Nobody — on earth — uses Dembski’s “detection methods” to detect any darn thing at all.
So let’s move on. Back to Grand Canyon and those magnificent colors. Mysterious alien beings might have put them there. What next? What do we do next to follow up on this hypothesis and how does the unique answer to that question provided by “intelligent design” “researchers” allow those “researchers” to achieve faster and more accurate results than the approach a scientist might take to determining the origin of those colors?
C’mon Freawaru. This is your golden moment. You answer this question honestly and directly and you leave Salvador and Dembski in the dust. Step up to the plate. Hit it out of the park.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 11:56 am
So Freawaru and Sal have run off without explaining how their “design theory” can help us understand those magnificent colors on the walls of the Grand Canyon.
Thanks Freawaru and Sal! You’ve once again shown everyone how potent your methodology is. It’s so potent, then when asked basic questions about its nature and application to a real world problem, its’ proponents flee like rats, squeaking about “junk DNA” and looking for a place to discuss “free will.”
But that behavior is not “pathetic.”
Nope.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
Here is the real crux of the disagreement, as PvM has pointed out: what qualifies as an “adaptation” in biology can only be determined retrospectively,
Neither Sal nor Freawaru are likely to grasp this sort of subtlety. You’d actually have to want to understand biology and it’s plain neither of them do not (Sal, for example, has been the beneficiary of one of the world’s longest running free education topics and hasn’t made it past first base).
The magnificently colored walls of the Grand Canyon, of course, could also have been “designed” by “mysterious alien beings”. They are extraordinarily beautiful and acknowledged as such by millions. Why, I can recall a Disney film remarking that they were painted by “The Master Painter” (whoever that might be).
So let’s see the “intelligent design” methodology in action. The hypothesis is that mysterious alien beings designed the wondrously colorful walls of the Grand Canyon. So: what unique questions does the “ID researcher” bring to the table to evaluate the merits of this hypothesis?
Let’s go, Freawaru. This can be a huge day for you — one of the most important days in your life if you can bring yourself to honestly answer these straightforward questions. You seem to consider yourself an expert on the subject so: let’s go! Let’s hear it. Upthread you were all talk. Then you clammed up (probably because Sal is whispering in your ear — don’t let him get too close!).
What does the ID researcher do nex
Oh, and Allen:: consider why politically savvy ID peddlers like Sal do not like to discuss this topic. There is an obvious answer.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
When reputable birders reported hearing ivory-billed woodpeckers deep in a swampy forest in the south, did scientists sit around the campfire and poke fun at them?
Ha, Don, we’re thinking along the same lines.
For the record, I personally was very disappointed in the way these scientists handled themselves.
The facts are as follows: the ivory-billed woodpecker is extinct, the “data” presented to support the scientists extraordinary claims was extremely weak, and now these folks have egg on their faces (no pun intended). In the process, of course, they diminish science with their silliness.
I still can’t believe that I ever held a paper in my hand with the headline, “Ivory billed woodpecker still alive,” and a picture of a wooden model of a woodpecker nailed to a tree. Talk about surreal.
Oh, and I’m ready to put my wallet where my mouth is. You want to bet that a living ivory-billed woodpecker will be found in the next three years? I’ll give you 500 bucks.
That said, we should preserve those swamps where the pecker used to live. Awesome, beautiful nature. In fact, I think that “mysterious alien beings” might have designed it to enable the creatures who live there to thrive. Can someone tell me what unique research I should do to follow up on this hypothesis in accordance with “ID theory”?
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
Amy - on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, you won’t get any sympathy from me on your bets. If you want to call the evidence weak, go ahead, but I have serious differences with that.
On the other hand, because we know that if there are indeed any left there are probably extremely few, it could very well be true that the one seen in 2004 was the last, and they could very well go extinct any day in the next “three years.”
And even if the sighting was on “weak evidence,” and this bird IS extinct, wouldn’t you contend that conservation and recovery of old-growth bottomland hardwood forests is a good thing?
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 7:59 pm
And even if the sighting was on “weak evidence,” and this bird IS extinct, wouldn’t you contend that conservation and recovery of old-growth bottomland hardwood forests is a good thing?
Absolutely. 100%. I made the clear in my earlier comment.
But foisting that ivory billed woodpecker scam on the public was an ill-advised way to go about achieving that goal.
If you want to call the evidence weak, go ahead, but I have serious differences with that.
You want to say that a few frames of a blurry photo of a bird flying away from the camera PROVES that a large and loud animal which was believed to be extinct for more than half a century is actually still alive? C’mon.
On the other hand, because we know that if there are indeed any left there are probably extremely few, it could very well be true that the one seen in 2004 was the last, and they could very well go extinct any day in the next “three years.”
For what it’s worth, I predicted that folks would eventually be making this exact statement on the day the paper on the “discovery” was published. As the Church Lady would say: “How conveeeenient!”
Just take the bet. I’ll touch base here in three years to collect my money. ;)
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
Dan, Amy did say the forest should be preserved.
For the record, I personally was very disappointed in the way these scientists handled themselves.
The facts are as follows: the ivory-billed woodpecker is extinct, the “data” presented to support the scientists extraordinary claims was extremely weak, and now these folks have egg on their faces (no pun intended). In the process, of course, they diminish science with their silliness.
Hmmm, I’ve heard the recordings back-to-back with recordings of known ivory-bills. The early recordings are of poor quality but … they sound a lot alike, no doubt. The video is of such poor quality as to be inconclusive.
My own guess is that the bird is extinct. If it’s not it’s clearly very near extinction. The evidence that’s been provided thus far isn’t strong enough to state that one was actually seen for certain, but it’s not so weak as to be “laughable” as you put it. Remember, there were unrecorded observations by highly-qualified observers that season, as well as the poor-quality video and the better-quality audio.
As a total aside, one of the few existing museum amounts of ivory-billed woodpeckers, an old one, is the oldest known bird showing long-bill
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
Sorry, I missed the earlier comment by Amy, I skimmed over that. Mostly, I just take offense at the claims made by Gallagher, Fitzpatrick and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology being called laughable. They might be proved wrong, however, but being wrong does not make one laughable, especially when their overall mission is noble and for a good cause. I much prefer Don’s way of saying it, rather than you (Amy) on your high horse condemning it:
But hey, we’re WAY off-topic here. ;-)
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
You want to say that a few frames of a blurry photo of a bird flying away from the camera PROVES that a large and loud animal which was believed to be extinct for more than half a century is actually still alive? C’mon.
Actually it’s the audio recording of double-knocks that is thought to be the strongest bit of evidence. That’s not a known pileated “thing” (the video is thought be many to be a pileated, the only known large woodpecker in the US).
And you make it sound as though ornithologists have claimed “proof” of its existence. Actually there’s been a heated argument about whether or not the evidence is sufficient since day one.
But foisting that ivory billed woodpecker scam on the public was an ill-advised way to go about achieving that goal.
You sound as though you believe there was intentional deceit here, and that the purpose was to protect the swampy forest habitat in question.
That’s flat-out false.
While it’s been fun watching expert amateurs like David Sibley nail a couple of professional ornithologists to the cross, there’s no claim that there’s been any deceit involved. Naysayers like Sibley say the evidence isn’t sufficient, but they don’t say it’s not valid evidence, in particular the double-knocks that have been recorded. People in the birding and ornithological communities aren’t doubting the sincerity of the observers as far as I know, anyway.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 8:23 pm
Yes, we have drifted far off-topic here. It wasn’t my intent to start a discussion on whether or not the observations have been validated, only to point out that dashing off into the hinterland in an attempt to verify or debunk an unexpected observation is typical of science, while the hobbit fiction of sitting around the campfire denying the possibility is not.
And of course I chose this example because of Cornell’s role in the search for the holy-grail of north american birding, the ivory-billed woodpecker.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
Exactly.
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
Indeed - and I’m wondering, what exactly was Wulfgar trying to imply by this seemingly completely irrelevant excerpt from LotR???
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
but it’s not so weak as to be “laughable” as you put it
What can I say? I laughed. My scientists friends laughed.
Once again: under a headline saying “Ivory Billed Woodpecker Discovered Alive” there was a picture of a wooden bird nailed to a tree.
You think that’s not laughable? It’s hilarious. The only thing unfunny about it is that — at the end of the day — the joke is on the scientists who insisted on publishing and promoting their “discovery.”
You sound as though you believe there was intentional deceit here, and that the purpose was to protect the swampy forest habitat in question.
I don’t know if there was intentional deceit or not. I doubt it, but it’s difficult to rule that possibility out. I am not aware of any “evidence” to support intentional deceit. On the other hand, the motivation to protect the swampland was high. And surely nothing could be sexier than an ivory-billed woodpecker “sighting.” And nothing could be harder to verify — as the passage of time has proven.
And you make it sound as though ornithologists have claimed “proof” of its existence.
Some did. I never said that ornithologists agreed. Many were skeptical from the beginning. I was skeptical too, though I’m not an ornithologist (nor am I a primatologist but I am equally skeptical that Sasquatch is roaming the Oregon woods — I’ll take bets on that, too, by the way).
Actually there’s been a heated argument about whether or not the evidence is sufficient since day one
Not heated enough, in my opinion. The paper should never have been published … certainly not in Science magazine.
Actually it’s the audio recording of double-knocks that is thought to be the strongest bit of evidence.
Think about that.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
And of course I chose this example because of Cornell’s role in the search for the holy-grail of north american birding, the ivory-billed woodpecker.
That’s why I chose it too! :)
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
Indeed - and I’m wondering, what exactly was Wulfgar trying to imply by this seemingly completely irrelevant excerpt from LotR???
I dunno but the Ents are not half as weird as Tom Bombadil.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
People in the birding and ornithological communities aren’t doubting the sincerity of the observers as far as I know, anyway.
There are quite a few people that are certain they saw an ivory billed woodpecker at some point in their lifetimes. They are moved to tears when they talk about their experience.
Given the lack of evidence indicating willful deception, it’s not surprising that “members of the bird-watching or ornithological communities” would cut these trigger happy scientists a whole lot of slack. Plus, it sort of taints the whole enterprise, as I alluded to above.
I wouldn’t put it on par with something like Rathergate but, in my mind at least, the whole episode smelled from day 1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And “double knocks” in woods that are teaming with woodpeckers and other animals just doesn’t cut it.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 8:47 pm
No, I don’t think it’s funny at all. And the reporting of what they had was the only responsible thing to do as conservation biologists. What if they were right, kept their mouths shut, and missed the opportunity to save the bird’s habitat while there was still a chance? (note the interest by the Army Corps of Engineers and others to fill in the swamps there last year)
Now you’re the one sounding like a conspiracy theorist, Amy. Scant or weak evidence is still evidence, and the only responsible thing for them to do was to present it to the public in a conservation effort, as they did.
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
Oh, and Amy, I would watch how you casually dismiss alternative and entirely possible scientific viewpoints (note I’m not defending the IDers) - you’re actually starting to sound like the IDers who casually claim that “Darwinism is dead” out of incredulity…
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 8:56 pm
To those not immersed in the bird world, perhaps not. But those of us who are take such things very seriously. Many bird surveys are by ear, not sight, and there are closely-related bird species that can’t be reliably separated by sight that can be by song or call.
Woodpecker drummings and knocks against snags are how they identify themselves to prospect mates, among other things. These are diagnostic. Many also have distinctive foraging patterns that lead to diagnostic whack-a-tree noises, too. Those woods might be full of woodpeckers, but they are most assuredly not full of woodpeckers imitating ivory-billed woodpeckers …
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
you’re actually starting to sound like the IDers who casually claim that “Darwinism is dead” out of incredulity
That thought’s crossed my mind, too, but decided to make an attempt, at least, to teach her that bird sounds are often as valid, sometimes even more valid, than visual observation for identification purposes despite her incredulity …
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 9:05 pm
Dan — read carefully.
And the reporting of what they had was the only responsible thing to do as conservation biologists. What if they were right, kept their mouths shut, and missed the opportunity to save the bird’s habitat while there was still a chance? (note the interest by the Army Corps of Engineers and others to fill in the swamps there last year)
Sure. “Reporting” is one thing. But they went a bit further in their claims. Do I need to assemble the press releases and find the paper and start quoting it? There was a profound lack of skepticism in their article.
Are there no other endangered animals in those swamps which are KNOWN to exist? Perhaps those animals might have been used.
Frankly, your suggestion that reporting allegedly strong scientific evidence of an ivory billed woodpecker sighting was the “only way” to save the swamp does not work in the scientists’ favor.
Now you’re the one sounding like a conspiracy theorist, Amy.
A conspiracy theorist who admits that there is no evidence of a conspiracy???? Geez. The bar has been lowered. You should know me better by now. If I believed there was a conspiracy, I would say so. Right?
Scant or weak evidence is still evidence, and the only responsible thing for them to do was to present it to the public in a conservation effort, as they did.
Yes, in Science magazine — not some conservation or ornithology magazein — with a whole boatload of hoopla and a picture of a wooden bird nailed to a tree. Are you saying they reported the evidence as stronger than it actually was not because the evidence was so strong but because they had to do it lest the forests be destroyed and no further evidence could be collected? That’s an interesting claim in itself. Anyone on the record to that effect?
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
bird sounds are often as valid, sometimes even more valid, than visual observation for identification purposes despite her incredulity
Of course they are, Don. But not in this case. And I explained why that it so several times already.
The proof of my position is in the pudding or, rather, the empty bowl where we ought to see a recently shot and killed ivory billed woodpecker if your claim about the “knocking” noises held water.
you’re actually starting to sound like the IDers who casually claim that “Darwinism is dead” out of incredulity
Can we get something straight here? Until this blurry video and “knocking” noises recording was, er, produced for public consumption, the ivory billed woodpecker was officially extinct.
I do not know what the position of the world’s ornithologists is regarding the status of the bird on June 13, 2006. But it will be officially extinct again in a few years and it won’t be because of incredulousness on the part of ornithologists, just like it wasn’t excessive incredulousness that led to the status before. It’s a very reasonable and sober conclusion.
I have to ask, though: have either Dan or Don ever seen a pileated woodpecker ripping the siding off someone’s house? We’re not talking about a quiet little mouse or fish here.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 9:20 pm
Are you saying they reported the evidence as stronger than it actually was…
Umm … they reported the evidence exactly as it was. A videotape which can only be ivory-billed or pileated, and for which can make strong arguments that exclude pileated. Those arguments have been disputed. The second piece of evidence they presented, the audio tape, is considered strong evidence even by the skeptics in the ornithological/birding community.
Just as biologists find it laughable that engineers dismiss evolution based on personal incredulity, experts in bird identification find it laughable that those who know nothing about that particular skill dismiss the evidence based on personal incredulity.
What species do you believe is making that distinctive double-knock sound?
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 9:21 pm
I have to ask, though: have either Dan or Don ever seen a pileated woodpecker ripping the siding off someone’s house? We’re not talking about a quiet little mouse or fish here.
Ummm … you want to put your ears up against my ears? Name the time, the place, and the wager.
Unfortunately, your statement makes it clear you don’t understand why the recording’s not thought to be of a pileated. Reread a couple of my posts above, I’ve explained why. Volume’s not the reason.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
Yes, please. Because I read the press releases also, and listened to the recordings and saw the Luneau video. And although I’m a mere amateur birdwatcher, not an accredited ornithologist, I found everything entirely reasonable.
And for the first year and a half, criticism was scant, was it not? Only now, two years later and without followup sightings is criticism becoming more stringent. So please, don’t talk down to me, I don’t like you very much when you do that.
Yes, but none that rely so heavily on those swamps, nor are so endangered, as the Ivory-billed.
When did I suggest that the evidence was indeed strong, or that this was the only way to save the swamp?
No, you said:
This is different from saying “there was no deception.”
What, you think that anyone would have listened or anything been accomplished without the media? Everything revolves around money and the media in this country - it’s sad, but true.
And no, I disagree that they reported the evidence as stronger than it was in the first place. They analyzed the video and recordings as best they could, and presented that data up for scrutiny. That’s science, not propaganda. But yes, I’m saying that presenting the data for scrutiny was the responsible scientific way to go about it, and that it was good for environmental conservationism. They presented the data, got funding for further searches, preserved the habitat, and went back for more data - let the chips fall where they may.
Can you think anything good that could have come out of it if they’d kept their mouths shut and the Army Corps of Engineers filled in the swamp in 2005 as they would’ve liked to? I can’t.
Now please, get down off your condescending high horse….
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
um, no. It was assumed extinct. Big difference there.
No, merely into the sides of trees, admittedly. Why? I thought I’d just have to be able to compare their sounds on tree trunks, not on the sides of houses.
I agree with Don, your statements make it clear you are a novice birdwatcher at best.
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
What species do you believe is making that distinctive double-knock sound?
Geez, I dunno. A pileated with a neck cramp. Or is that impossible based on your understanding of bird physiology and having recorded the entire population of pileated woodpeckers in that swamp individually for hundreds of hours and found zero examples of those double knocks?
Seriously.
experts in bird identification find it laughable that those who know nothing about that particular skill dismiss the evidence based on personal incredulity.
They can laugh all they want. Where is the bird, other than in their imaginations?
I’m not dismissing the evidence based on “incredulity.” I’m dismissing it based on (1) no documentation of an ivory billed woodpecker in those woods despite 50 years of searching for it by thousands of devoted people and (2) the fact that “knocking sounds” are simply not as inherently distinctive as you wish they were, Don.
There is no “incredulity.” Again: the official status of the bird was (and perhaps is now and will almost certainly be again in the near future) “extinct.” Why do you think that was, Don? Did ornithologists jump to that conclusion based on bad evidence? If so, what makes you think they aren’t doing so now?
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
Yes, that’s impossible that a “neck cramp” would do it. The Cornell researchers evaluated various possibilities - Pileated, Nuthatch, Blue Jay, etc., here, and found only the Ivory-billed double knock matched.
Yep, we can laugh at you all right.
Yes, it is incredulity (using the lack of evidence after only 2 years time as basis), and there have been reasonable claims (few, admittedly, but they exist) since 1944. One pic was even taken in 1972. But they were dismissed as unconfirmed, and without a specimen, who was to argue with them? This is the same story all over again.
You should read more of the actual paper in science, and Tim Gallagher’s book - both fascinating.
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
“…get down off your condescending high horse…”
On the basis of induction, using past posts as evidence, I don’t think she can…
Comment by Allen MacNeill — June 13, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
Perhaps - and previously I’d let it pass because it wasn’t directed at me and because I generally agreed with her conclusions… selfish, I know. ;-)
Anyway, Amy, perhaps you’d like to discuss this with some real ornithologists. My personal fav is at Bootstrap Analysis.
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 9:53 pm
And for the first year and a half, criticism was scant, was it not? Only now, two years later and without followup sightings is criticism becoming more stringent.
Whatever. I’ve been highly critical all along and I was NOT alone in that criticism. That’s yet another fact.
My prediction that a live or dead ivory billed woodpecker would not be brought out of those swamps was confirmed. The people who didn’t take my bet AT THE TIME were wise not to do so.
Funny that you aren’t taking my bet now, given your strong attachment to the idea that this giant woodpecker is “hiding” in the swamp from thousands of desperate bird lovers.
Yes, but none that rely so heavily on those swamps, nor are so endangered, as the Ivory-billed.
The ivory billed woodpecker is “endangered”? Talk about assumptions! There has not been an unambiguous confirmation of an ivory billed woodpecker living in that swamp for more than half a century. Yet it’s considered “endangered”? Remarkable.
Now please, get down off your condescending high horse….
Get off yours.
I agree with Don, your statements make it clear you are a novice birdwatcher at best.
Yeah. Nothing condenscending about that statement.
We all agree: it sorta sucks to be wrong, especially if you are wrong in a big public way. So at what point do we face the facts and admit that the Cornell researchers were wrong? Never? Because “the might have seen the last living ivory billed woodpecker”? Gawd, I hope that’s not the case.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
On the basis of induction, using past posts as evidence, I don’t think she can…
Don’t worry, Allen, all your posts are archived too! That’s the beauty of blogging.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
Yes, that’s impossible that a “neck cramp” would do it.
Really? How did they show that?
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
Yes, it is incredulity (using the lack of evidence after only 2 years time as basis), and there have been reasonable claims (few, admittedly, but they exist) since 1944. One pic was even taken in 1972. But they were dismissed as unconfirmed, and without a specimen, who was to argue with them? This is the same story all over again.
And how does the story end, Don?
When is a living Sasquatch / Loch Ness / Ivory Billed Woodpecker deemed to exist only in the imaginations of the imaginers?
100 years without a living bird or corpse? Would that do it? Or 200? Seriously. At what point do *you* give up and join the “dark side” of non-believers like me?
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
I dabble.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 10:03 pm
Funny indeed - I don’t bet.
Ok, I’m sorry. Just out of curiousity, how many birds do you have on your life list? I’m at about 190 that I can identify quickly and easily by sight or sound (I’m not much above what I’d call novice, myself).
Anatomical studies of avian larynxes.
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 10:07 pm
Anatomical studies of avian larynxes.
Cite? I’d like to see where that issue was addressed. Just to be clear: these researchers proved that only the larynx of the ivory billed woodpecker is physically capable of making that sound? No other bird or other animal under any other circumstances can make such a noise?
If, as you claim, this sound data is so compelling and represents the best data for the bird’s continued existence, I find it odd that the most recent arguments against the bird’s existence (in the March issue of Science) focus on the video.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
Ok, I’m sorry. Just out of curiousity, how many birds do you have on your life list? I’m at about 190
Seen any ivory billed woodpeckers?
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 10:14 pm
In fairness to Amy, the “double-knock” refers to knocking on a snag, while your anatomical reference has to do with the nasal “kent” call (which is generated by a syrinx, not larynx, but that’s a common error).
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 10:14 pm
This from the woman who got all snarky because one of our IDEA people here wouldn’t answer her when she asked what level of biology classes the person had taken.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
True, but that’s even more silly to think that a “neck cramp” would change a non-IB Woodpecker knock precisely into an IB knock.
No, I’ve never gone birdwatching in swamps in that part of the country, either. But I’d be able to tell if something similar to but not a Pileated flew across my path. And Gallagher et al. are much better at Identifying birds than I am.
But just answer the question, “how many birds do you have on your life list?” (I thought you hated when people dodged your questions)
And, in all fairness, I think I asked this question to. Hopefully less snarkily though.
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
This from the woman who got all snarky because one of our IDEA people here wouldn’t answer her when she asked what level of biology classes the person had taken.
False. I could care less what level of
Can we refresh our memories for a moment? Dan told me I was condenscending, then bragged about how many birds he had ID’d. Give me a break.
I never disputed that bird calls could be used for identifying birds. Rather, I confirmed this obvious fact.
The problem — which I clearly outlined upthread — is that in order for these “knocking/pecking noises” to qualify as extraordinary evidence, they need to be extraordinarily distinctive. And they simply are not. And no, you don’t need to be bird watcher or an ornithologist to understand why that might be the case.
Thanks for clearing up that bit with the larynx, by the way.
For the record, I could care less if you find me “condenscending.” If you catch me bragging about my high degrees in an effort to make my arguments more convincing, I urge you to call me on it. Also, I’m extremely forgiving and generous with respect to argumentative boners of all kinds with one exception: blatant dishonesty and habitual goalpost shifting.
So even if you hold me in contempt for whatever reason, I come away from this discussion only knowing that science supporters can be very stubborn. Not a problem.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 10:35 pm
Oh, and even if I was incorrect in citing avian vocal cords for woodpecker noises, since I mentioned it, here’s a useful article:
New perspectives on mechanisms of sound generation in songbirds.
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 10:36 pm
No, you implied you weren’t merely a novice birdwatcher. I said sorry, and tried politely asking you a common talking point amongst birdwatchers. Either you are a birdwatcher and wouldn’t mind being asked that, or I was right, and you’re ignorant on birdwatching.
Then why do you call the IB evidence laughable?
Yes, they are. If you really do know a lot about birds, you’d know this to be the case. And if you don’t, check the link I provided upthread, where Cornell researchers conclusively show that the recordings were very very likely not those of any bird other than the IB.
Yes, I noticed that you don’t care what other people think of you.
Now you have me curious - but what field are you in? You said you’re at UC Berkeley, right? (sorry if I recall that comment wrong)
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 10:43 pm
But just answer the question, “how many birds do you have on your life list?” (I thought you hated when people dodged your questions)
I hate it when people dodge relevant questions that are relevant to their extraordinary claims. I’m not making any extraordinary claims. I do have quite a few recordings — some of them quite rare — of bird calls. Does that impress you?
Make no mistake: whether I have zero or 1000 birds on my list has no bearing on my statements in this thread. Besides, I’m in good company. Very highly respected ornithologists who have many many more birds on their list than you (or me) agree that the ivory billed evidence is not persuasive and have made sober arguments in an effort to debunk the Cornell researchers’ claims. Again: time will tell and, thus far, the ivory billed woodpecker appears to exist only as a collection of dubiously resolved digital bits stored away in hard drives.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
No, you implied you weren’t merely a novice birdwatcher.
When?
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
Now you have me curious - but what field are you in? You said you’re at UC Berkeley, right? (sorry if I recall that comment wrong)
I said I attended a symposium at UC Berkeley.
I’m not in any field. I work indoors. But I enjoy gardening on the weekends.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
Sure, if you can tell them apart quickly and without reading the labels.
Sure it does. If you’re a good birdwatcher, you’d understand why the Cornell team’s evidence is compelling. If you don’t understand bird identification in the field, you wouldn’t.
Yes, but they don’t call such evidence “laughable” nor do they dismiss it as casually as you do. Oh, they still don’t buy it, sure - but they think about it a bit more first.
Finally, you’re backing off to a more reasonable and defendable position. Thank you.
I took it that way when you raised objection to my dismissal of you as one, figuring that if you were a less than a novice birdwatcher, you wouldn’t object to that label. Sorry for the confusion, I merely thought that’s what you implied.
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
No, I asked what field of science you were in.
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
Yes, they are. If you really do know a lot about birds, you’d know this to be the case.
I’ve no doubt that the sound of a pecker pecking can be distinctive and useful in some circumstances. And it would be vastly more meaningful in this instance if a live or dead IB woodpecker were produced. It would be reasonable to conclude that the sounds were being made by other IB’s living in the woods.
But by itself — in the absence of any positive bird identifications — it simply is not good enough and never will be. That’s why I ask: if 200 years go by and you can still here those “distinctive sounds” but nobody has produced an unambiguous IB, what then? Does it ever become convincing to you that an error was made (i.e., that the sounds, in fact, were not as distinctive as they were claimed to be)?
Part of the problem is that there is a way to directly confirm my suspicions but it’s not sexy research. You simply need to record a sufficient number of pileated woodpeckers pecking on different kinds of bark until you collect enough examples of similar sounds. Then the claim is dead. But why would an ornithologist be interested in doing this kind of research? Other than getting at the “truth” of the IB’s existence, what does it offer for conservationists?
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 11:02 pm
Fair enough comments, that I won’t argue with. I just take issue with your broad condemnation of the search in general.
Um, sexy science?!
And the Cornell Library of Sounds has a few hundred thousand recordings of over 4000 bird species. Is that enough?
Ahh, I see.
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 11:09 pm
Missed this:
Ecological conservation. That’s what. The possibility of maybe saving a species from extinction. Not to mention conserving and recovering the ecosystem overall from developers and others
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
Oh, they still don’t buy it, sure - but they think about it a bit more first.
They have to. The other side has dressed up their video and audio recordings will sorts of “technical” arguments that need to be addressed.
And this gets to the nub, really, of what is what about the Science paper which made me batty in the first place. We’re not talking about the identification of an elusive subatomic particle or a new enzyme with a remarkable unexpected activity.
We’re talking about a BIG FREAKING BIRD. And frankly, if you are going to publish a paper in Science magazine saying that you’ve proven that a BIG FREAKING BIRD that was “believed to be extinct” for over half a century is “rediscovered” then — in my humble but far from isolated opinion — you should have more than a blurry video and “knocking noises.” That’s what plainly smelled to me. And it still smells. It smells like a woodpecker that died 50 years ago.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 11:13 pm
But, dear, as has been patiently explained to you, bird calls, songs, and (yes) cadence and length of woodpecker territorial drumming and other wood-knocking activity IS VERY OFTEN SUFFICIENT FOR POSITIVE BIRD IDENTIFICATION.
Spotted owl territorial calls, heard several times under a well-defined listening protocol, are sufficient for not only positive identification but for the identification of breeding territory.
Just one “for instance”.
The reason why the recent attack on the ivory-billed ID focused on the video rather than the audio is precisely because that evidence is considered weaker than the audio. The audio analysis (done digitally) is more robust.
The jury’s out. No one denies that. But, as Dan points out, you’re not correct when you state that you are in good company. Professional ornithologists who question whether an ivory-billed was found don’t do so laughingly, don’t consider the researchers “trigger-happy”, etc etc. They take the evidence seriously. If it’s not an ivory-billed, the audio recordings are a bit of a mystery. Solving it will add to our knowledge of birds. Nothing you’re saying will add to anything other than our blood pressure.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 11:14 pm
Again, how have they done this? I’ve read all the papers, the book, talked with Gallagher and Rosenberg, gone to hear Fitzpatrick speak - and I haven’t seen then falsify anything, just present the data as best they could. How is that “dressed up”?
As for the rest - why do you insist on maligning respected ornithologists? None of the IB critics speak so dismissively of the Cornell team nor their evidence, and given your lack of scientific professionalism, why should I respond to anything you say?
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 11:20 pm
Every year if you go to popular birding spots, there’s a fair chance you’ll meet someone from Cornell’s ornithology department with a parabolic dish, sensitive microphone, and very nice recording equipment.
I’ve run into folks collecting recordings for Cornell two or three times in my life.
Among other things, they have many recordings of pileated woodpeckers.
Now, let’s tote up what’s funny about your post:
1. You claim researchers don’t find recording sounds “sexy” so it’s not done. False. It’s done every year.
2. You keep harping on the pileated woodpecker when the vocalizations most closely resemble blue jay and white-breasted nuthatch (but digital analysis shows the resemblance to be superficial - or so says Cornell)
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 11:20 pm
Ecological conservation. That’s what. The possibility of maybe saving a species from extinction. Not to mention conserving and recovering the ecosystem overall from developers and others.
Yes, and those are laubable goals which I applaud but not at the expense of damaging the reputation of scientists. We really do not want the public to get the impression that, in order to save an ecosystem, scientists will create “controversies” and draw conclusions that aren’t warranted by the evidence.
Do you agree? I mean, whether or not you agree that this particular episode provides grounds for that impression, do you agree that such an impression would be counterproductive to the goal of preserving ecosystems.
A better way for scientists to provide in instances like this is to make it perfectly clear that those swamps are FILLED with species that have not yet been identified and studied carefully. The ivory billed woodpecker is just a side show. And it’s the as-yet-uncharacterized species — of insects and bacteria and mosses and lichens — that is where the action. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of other amazing creatures that are known that rely on the swamp for their survival.
I heard a scientist point out recently that the siRNA — a hot topic in the field of molecular biology — was not identified in the War on Cancer. It was identified in the War on Petunias. The public needs to understand and appreciate this fact, which is really another way of saying that the public needs to understand and appreciate how good science is carried out and why it needs to be supported.
I just take issue with your broad condemnation of the search in general.
People can search all they want. I think searching those swamps sounds like a lot of fun, myself. Do I want my tax dollars used so others can search the swamps for that bird instead of doing something a bit more productive? Probably.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
You claim researchers don’t find recording sounds “sexy” so it’s not done.
That wasn’t my claim. Please be more careful, Don. My claim was that *debunking* the alleged “impossibility’ of any other bird (or animal) making the mysterious knocking noises was not sexy. And I stand by that.
You keep harping on the pileated woodpecker when the vocalizations most closely resemble blue jay and white-breasted nuthatch
Okay, thanks.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 11:25 pm
You’re the first person I’ve heard make such a comment about the ivory-billed claims. It was a common claim in the spotted owl wars (in which I was involved as a board member of one of the two lead co-plaintiffs that filed the winning lawsuit), but not in this case.
This tactic won’t lead to the protection of federal land. Sorry. No legal basis.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
Look at it this way: if I could collect 500 pileated woodpeckers of different sexes and ages and health and put them in a big aviary, I predict I could eventually capture some blurry video that looked a lot like the alleged IB video.
This is unsexy research.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 13, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
No, I don’t agree. But then again I’m a practicing scientist and see things from our side, not the public’s. But there are legitimate controversies in every field of science. Why should we hide them, as long as they’re still eventually decided by the evidence. (as Don says, the jury is still out)
Sadly though, your comments about the public’s understanding of science is all too true (roughly 17percent of the American public is currently considered scientifically literate), but there’s no simple solution to that.
Do I want my tax dollars used so others can search the swamps for that bird instead of doing something a bit more productive? Probably.
That’s another legitimate point that we could spend hours going back and forth on.
And, as someone more familiar with birds, I’m saying you’d be wrong.
Unfortunately, I’m calling it a day. Talk to you all tomorrow
Comment by Dan — June 13, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
Just for the record, none of the overhead expenses of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology are paid for by taxpayers dollars AFAIK. True, some of the professors working there receive support from the NSF, but AFAIK none of them are involved in the hunt for the IB. On the contrary, virtually all of the support for the hunt in Arkansas over the past two years has come from private donations, mostly from birders.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — June 14, 2006 @ 12:14 am
Why should we hide them, as long as they’re still eventually decided by the evidence. (as Don says, the jury is still out)
Really a trip arguing with you two, Dan and Don.
I never said the data should be “hidden.” There’s a large difference between publishing some data and some recordings and speculating about them versus doing what the Cornell researchers did which was to proclaim a “rediscovery” when, in fact, no such “rediscovery” occurred.
The ivory billled woodpecker is just as extinct today as it was in 2000. You can “believe” otherwise but until you show me the woodpecker, your up in that swamp without paddle, so to speak.
By the way — I assume that many more recordings of the birds were made over the past year, no? How did that go? Was a lot more of that “compelling” evidence added to the pile? Better, clearer recordings?
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 2:26 am
And, as someone more familiar with birds, I’m saying you’d be wrong.
As someone familiar with video cameras, I’m saying that you are missing the point, my friend.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 2:29 am
As an internationally published nature photographer, I’m calling your bluff on this one, too …
And, yes, your style really is reminiscent of the ID crowd. Your personal opinion is not fact, and what you state as fact above is simply your personal opinion.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 14, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
I don’t know, they’re reportedly doing detailed analyses of recordings now (they’ve claimed they got some, but there are thousands of recordings that they haven’t even listened to yet).
As someone familiar with video cameras, I’m saying that you are missing the point, my friend.
Anyway, thank you for the blind references to what you, Amy, believe to be or not be adequate ornithological evidence. Incredulity indeed.
Comment by Dan — June 14, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
personal opinion is not fact, and what you state as fact above is simply your personal opinion.
Of course, it’s not just my personal opinion. It’s shared by a significant number of others.
Pity you aren’t “betting men”. Then we could test the conviction of your beliefs.
Why not answer the question: since you believe it is reasonable to expect a live or dead ivory billed woodpecker to be brought forth from the swamps at any moment in the next five years or so, when does it become UNREASONABLE? After 100 years? 200 years? 1000 years? Or does the ID woodpecker become like the Yeti — always “hiding” from capture but continually “sighted” and reported in blurry photographs that “couldn’t possibly be explained by” anything else?
Both you and Dan have dodged this issue several times. When do you two drop it and admit that I’m right and the IB woodpecker is extinct? Never? Yeah — real reasonable, guys.
And, yes, your style really is reminiscent of the ID crowd.
No it’s not. Does everyone you disagree with get smeared this way? Grow up, please.
I’m not asking you to show me a cell arising from mud or a cat evolving from a dog. I’m asking you to show me a decent picture of a stupid bird. If you really can’t tell the difference then admit it and we can start looking for a resource to provide you with the help you need.
There is such a thing as “bad science.” Scientists sometimes publish weak papers with overblown claims. I’m not ashamed to admit it.
Unfortunately for you, Don, my claim that the last IB woodpecker is dead as a doornail and has been for decades is on pretty good footing, to say the least. My claim is far more than a “personal” opinion. A great many people agree with me — in fact, one of them just got published in Science! Or have you forgotten that inconvenient fact?
“Personal opinion.” What a laugh.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
adequate ornithological evidence
Dan, by chance have you ever owned a pet store and had a customer come in complaining about a dead parrot?
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
From Wikipedia
In a paper published in The Auk in January 2006, Jerome Jackson expressed skepticism of the Ivory-bill evidence:
Prum, Robbins, Brett Benz, and I remain steadfast in our belief that the bird in the Luneau video is a normal Pileated Woodpecker. Others have independently come to the same conclusion, and publication of independent analyses may be forthcoming…For scientists to label sight reports and questionable photographs as “proof” of such an extraordinary record is delving into “faith-based” ornithology and doing a disservice to science
Gosh that sounds familiar.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
Science 17 March 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5767, p. 1555
DOI: 10.1126/science.1122778
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Technical Comments
Comment on “Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America”
David A. Sibley,1* Louis R. Bevier,2 Michael A. Patten,3 Chris S. Elphick4
We reanalyzed video presented as confirmation that an ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) persists in Arkansas (Fitzpatrick et al., Reports, 3 June 2005, p. 1460). None of the features described as diagnostic of the ivory-billed woodpecker eliminate a normal pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). Although we support efforts to find and protect ivory-billed woodpeckers, the video evidence does not demonstrate that the species persists in the United States.
Gosh.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 7:32 pm
Anyway, thank you for the blind references to what you, Amy, believe to be or not be adequate ornithological evidence. Incredulity indeed.
Care to retract this condescending bit o’ garbage, Dan?
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
White-breasted Nuthatches have a call that is similar, but less powerful. Blue Jays also sometimes make sounds that resemble the calls of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. Researchers use computer programs to analyze the acoustic properties of the sounds and classify them as most similar to the calls of Blue Jays, White-breasted Nuthatches, or Ivory-billed Woodpeckers.
So where did the recordings of the IB woodpecker come from?
The only definitive recordings of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were made in 1935.
1935. So the recordings were surely non-magnetic, most likely phonograph recordings, i.e., not very advanced. This is a rather severe limitation unless the sounds of the ivory-billed are incontrovertibly unique. But they’re not. Understand? THey’re not. THat’s not my personal opinion.
THat’s a fact. You need to live with that.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 7:38 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07woodpecker.html?ex=1304654400en=561d08108f340077ei=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss&pagewanted=all
The problem with double knocks is that they are not that distinctive a sound. As Fitzpatrick himself told me: “There are certain double-knocky sounds that come from wood ducks flapping wings on the water or running into each other.” Two branches banging in the wind can make that sound, as well as a distant truck running over a manhole cover.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
David Sibley
Many people have asked me why it matters. If there is a good chance that the birds are there, surely it is best to err on the side of caution, and the end result (conservation) is good even if the bird is never found again. In some respects I agree with this logic, but the truth is also important. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker has affected so many lives in so many ways that it would be unethical for me to stand by silently while decisions were based on information that I believed was flawed.
Spoken like a true scientist, I’d say.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
Sibley again
When I returned home, after a wonderful time camping and birding in the Big Woods, I sat down at my computer and took another look at the video - and I was stunned. Instead of seeing an Ivory-bill, there was a bird that looked like a Pileated - small, grainy, and blurry, but just like all the Pileated woodpeckers I had seen in Arkansas. I felt like I had been kicked in the stomach. I looked again and again, trying to refute my own conclusion, and I wept as the realization set in - that the Ivory-billed woodpecker was fading back into ghostly uncertainty, and that if the ivory-bill didn’t exist it could have profound repercussions in the birding and conservation communities.
Wow, what a creationist nutcase! ;)
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
I’m waiting for Dan or Don to make the argument that David Sibley is the Bill Dembski of ornithology.
Go for it, guys. It’s really the only argument you have left, after all. Heh.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
No. How on Earth is that even remotely relevant?
And yes, a fair quote of wikipedia. The difference is that Jerome Jackson and company are not going so far as to call the claims laughable, or dismissing the data out of hand (esp. the audio), or anything else like a raving lunatic such as yourself. Likewise with Silbey.
And if you’ve been reading what I’ve been saying, I never said that the Cornell team’s evidence was beyond criticism. I just said it wasn’t laughable.
I find the fact that you know next to nothing about birds, yet you care to laugh at highly respected ornithologists, the laughable part here.
Yes, I understand that’s your personal opinion. It’s my personal opinion that you haven’t got a clue. I think you need to learn to live with that.
Go listen to the recordings yourself and see if the 2004 recordings sound like the 1935 recordings to you, compared to the other options.
Anyway, please go be an arrogant know-nothing bitch somewhere else.
Comment by Dan — June 14, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
Ok, I’m tired of this crap. Make fun of legitimate scientists all you want, but I think my IQ is dropping just listening to this drivel, I’ve been patient enough.
Freawaru: any interest in banning this bi-otch for the sake of decent conversation? ;-)
Comment by Dan — June 14, 2006 @ 7:59 pm
Dan, by chance have you ever owned a pet store and had a customer come in complaining about a dead parrot?
No. How on Earth is that even remotely relevant?
Huh. Not a Monty Python fan I guess.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 7:59 pm
Make fun of legitimate scientists all you want
I never made fun of legitimate scientists. What are you talking about?
Freawaru: any interest in banning this bi-otch for the sake of decent conversation?
Geebus. That’s your reaction to having your arguments refuted, Dan?
Take it up with Sibley, Dan. Is Sibley not doing good science?
Sibley says the evidence confirms that the evidence shows a pileated woodpecker. And I should be banned for agreeing with Sibley??? What gives?
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
Yes, I understand that’s your personal opinion. It’s my personal opinion that you haven’t got a clue.
What about Sibley? Does Sibley have a clue? What about Fitzpatrick? Does Fitzpatrick have a clue?
Go listen to the recordings yourself and see if the 2004 recordings sound like the 1935 recordings to you, compared to the other options.
Did you read what Fitzpatrick said, Dan? Do you understand why the sound recordings are not the focus of Sibley’s refutation?
Calling someone “clueless” simply because they disagree with you is truly pathetic, Dan. As I’ve stated in this thread dozens of times: I’m not alone in my assessment of the bird’s status or the 2005 Science paper. So get over it already. Thanks.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
Freawaru: any interest in banning this bi-otch for the sake of decent conversation?
Did you just call me a bitch?????
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 8:08 pm
Yep - sorry, but I’m tired of your exceedingly rabid slander against respected ornithologists. (hey, I like birds, what can I say)
Comment by Dan — June 14, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
exceedingly rabid slander
Dan lies.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
I’m not alone in my assessment of the bird’s status or the 2005 Science paper. So get over it already.
And you’re quoting the one side and exaggerating it. Get over it. Can we just close this thread please? Ignoramuses annoy me.
Comment by Dan — June 14, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
Okay so Dan calls me a “bitch” and a “raving lunatic” and …. why?
Answer: because I thought the 2005 Science paper reporting the rediscovery of the ivory billed woodpecker was laughable and wrong.
High crimes, indeed! What would be really funny is if the IB woodpecker was really rediscovered in the next day or two. But that’s not going to happen.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
Dan lies.
LOL
Comment by Dan — June 14, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
And you’re quoting the one side and exaggerating it. Get over it. Can we just close this thread please? Ignoramuses annoy me.
Igoramus. Bitch. Raving lunatic. Real nice, Dan. Well done.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 8:14 pm
Show me where I slandered an ornithologist, Dan.
Or maybe consider retracting your comment and apologizing.
Otherwise, you clearly are a liar (when it serves you).
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
Igoramus. Bitch. Raving lunatic. Real nice, Dan. Well done.
:o)
Comment by Dan — June 14, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
David Sibley’s not a scientist, he’s an artist, Amy.
He’s also a well-respected amateur birder, one of the best in the country (which makes him about average in Britain).
Sibley also doesn’t agree with you, Amy:
Uncertainty. Not certainly extinct as you claim. Unlike the dodo bird or passenger pigeon, there have been many tantalizing bits of evidence that ivory-billeds may still be around in small numbers. In the US and in Cuba (the one expedition let in by Castro and OK’d by our government heard distinctive calls but were unable to sight the maker of these calls).
That’s one of the cool things about ornithology. Amateurs work side-by-side with professional scientists, and make significant contributions that are recognized by the scientific community. Making it easier for amateurs to gather and contribute data is the main reason why the American Ornithological Union officially recognizes common names as well as binomials (unlike other zoological taxonomy police).
I have no idea why you posted all those quotes challenging the video evidence. I said straight out in one of my first posts that the video evidence is - and has always been - considered weak.
You also seem to have missed this announcement from just a few months ago:
A fair number of researchers found the video evidence uncompelling. Many of them changed their mind when Cornell released more audio and also the digital analysis of the sounds making clear that the calls are not from blue jays or white-breasted nuthatches.
The 1935 recordings were state of the art at the time they were made.
Audiophiles today still prefer vinyl analog over digital CDs, and magnetic systems suffer from hiss. Your claim that the 1935 recordings must suck frankly … sucks.
Anyway, thanks for proving that you while you may have to be an IDer to be an IDiot, you don’t need to be an IDer to be an idiot.
I’m done with this. You come across as though you’re about 13 years old, and male, to boot.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 14, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
Or maybe consider retracting your comment and apologizing.
Otherwise, you clearly are a liar (when it serves you)
Nah, why should I apologize to someone who’s been rude to me (and Don, and PvM and Allen and oh you get the point) from the start?
Comment by Dan — June 14, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
Johnny, boy … nothing you post is of interest.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 14, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
Nah, why should I apologize to someone who’s been rude to me (and Don, and PvM and Allen and oh you get the point) from the start?
Nice attitude, Dan. Read upthread and contrast your statement of principles with mine above. Jesus did say some worthwhile things and, yes, you are free to ignore every one of them.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
Oh, and I’m fully aware I’ll get scolded by the TDP admins for my treatment of Amy, but (1) she does deserve it, doesn’t she? and (2) it’s too much fun seeing her foam at the mouth with exaggerations and appeals to authority, and well, like I said, (3) ignoramuses annoy me.
:o)
Comment by Dan — June 14, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
LOL
I thought you were the hardcore atheist who gagged when PvM gave his own religious views.
What more do you have to throw at me? LOL
Comment by Dan — June 14, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
it’s too much fun seeing her foam at the mouth with exaggerations and appeals to authority
Whose foaming, Dan? Did I call you a raving lunatic, a bitch, or accuse you of slander?
Speaking of exaggeration: I didn’t “appeal to authority” to justify a bogus claim, Dan. I cited Sibley and others to show you that the non-conclusory nature of those audio recordings was not merely my “personal” opinion. But you already knew that.
Please apologize for calling me a bitch, Dan. I think that would be the right thing to do.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
I thought you were the hardcore atheist who gagged when PvM gave his own religious views.
Nothing remotely religious about agreeing with some of the statements attributed to Jesus in the Bible. But you know this already, too, Dan. Why is it so hard for you to apologize for calling me a bitch and a raving lunatic?
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
LOL - you’ve been rabid since you came on the blog several threads ago.
Just start treating people with an ounce of decency, and I’ll be happy to apologize. But as Allen alluded to upthread, that’s not likely to happen, is it?
Comment by Dan — June 14, 2006 @ 8:36 pm
“Why is it so hard for you to apologize for calling me a bitch and a raving lunatic?”
Same reason why it’s hard for you to treat people decently. I’ve just had enough with your bullshit, that’s all.
Comment by Dan — June 14, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
Just start treating people with an ounce of decency, and I’ll be happy to apologize.
When did I treat you indecently, Dan? When I disagreed with you? When I asked you to provide evidence for your claims?
What did I do to deserve being called a “bitch” “a raving lunatic” “an igoramus” and (most ironically) “a slanderer”???
If we go up thread, I think you’ll see that you were the first to start with the name-calling. You said I was condescending or something.
That seems rather different from “bitch” “a raving lunatic” “an igoramus” and (most ironically) “a slanderer”???
But if it’s all “justified” in your mind, Dan, then enjoy yourself. I can only be disappointed that you are prone to dishonesty (in the absence of showing me where I slandered anyone) and a genuine hothead.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 8:46 pm
I’ve just had enough with your bullshit, that’s all.
Funny, when I get tired of someone’s baloney I simply stop reading. Perhaps in honor of Dan I’ll start spewing profanity and accusing people of slander.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
By the way, Dan, here’s the best part: even if you never apologize to me for calling me a “bitch” and a “slanderer,” I forgive you.
I know that people do sometimes lose their tempers and are unwilling to apologize for it later. Human pride and all that.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 8:50 pm
Freawaru
since you don’t seem the sort of person who would believe something just for convenience.
Who? PvM? I don’t get that impression.
Every human being believes in all kinds of things “just for convenience”. I can’t “prove” that reality is not just a dream and that gravity is going to work the same way tomorrow that it works today.
But I believe that it will. How else am I going to get through the darn day???
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
Because Don was generous with clarifying information in the hobbit thread I wanted to update something he wrote:
You also seem to have missed this announcement from just a few months ago:
Researchers who challenged video evidence supporting the rediscovery of the ivory-billed woodpecker have withdrawn their challenge. They say sound recordings confirm that the long-lost birds are living in an Arkansas swamp
Those scientists have retracted their statements:
Prum initially called the recordings “thrilling” and said they provided “clear and convincing evidence that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not extinct.” But on August 24 Russ Charif, a biologist in the Cornell Lab’s Bioacoustics Research Program and the coordinator for the BWCP’s acoustic search effort, told the annual meeting of the AOU in Santa Barbara that the recordings were “suggestive” and “tantalizing” but were not conclusive proof of the woodpecker’s presence in the Big Woods.
“Scientists at Cornell University have acknowledged that these recorded vocalizations and double raps do not constitute evidence confirming the presence of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers,” Jackson writes
http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/default.aspx?c=a&id=617
That’s all.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 11:32 pm
recommend the role of this weblog is to PRACTICE debate, not to win debate. Learn how to deal with red-herrings and misrepresentations, etc. Also, one of their tactics is to try to wear you down, waste your energy, get you upset, and get you to make intemperate comments.
Of course, drawing a concession or other useful admission from one’s opponent is widely acknowledged debate tactic. Provided that one does not resort to dishonesty or profanity, such argumentative techniques are de rigeur.
But perhaps Sal is referring to occasions where he himself has made been caught (ahem) “telling stories”. He’s a legend in other venues …
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/a_plea_to_scien.html
Comment by Amy Lester — June 14, 2006 @ 11:50 pm
Allen
BTW (and forgive me for going somewhat off-topic) has anyone noticed how quickly the opinions and writings of Carl Sagan have evaporated from the public and scientific arenas?
I actually haven’t noticed that. I suppose it depends on the company you keep to some extent.
For example, I discovered a blog today (not yesterday, unfortunately) which documents the increasingly sad saga of the ivory-billed woodpecker’s alleged “rediscovery”.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
The quote under the title of the blog says it all: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
It’s not a “law,” of course. It’s sound advice to keep in mind before you claim that something astounding has occurred.
Long live Carl Sagan!! (I think I saw him yesterday, by the way, getting a coffee at Starbucks and wearing dark sunglasses but he was walking away quickly so I couldn’t be certain ….)
I had forgotten he was a professor at Cornell. Oh, the irony …
Comment by Amy Lester — June 15, 2006 @ 3:08 am
Something or someone is attempting to revise history here.
My comment re Sagan was this, Allen: he is still being evoked by those who revere science and skepticism. For example, I discovered this site today:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
which I highly recommend for its intelligent approach to a certain issue which (I am getting the hint) is verboten here. The subheading at the site is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,” one of my favorite Carl Sagan quotes and a quote well-worth remembering. It’s not a “law.” It’s just good advice to remember when making extraordinary claims.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 15, 2006 @ 4:54 am
Amy– nothing is being deleted; but your recent posts are currently all in the moderation queue pending review– nothing personal, you just don’t have the best history with us and seemed to have some sort of desire to overflow that woodpecker thread everywhere else- a bit disruptive to ordinary discussion.
You mean the thread you shut down after Dan called me a “bitch”, “a raving lunatic” and a “slanderer”? And then I forgave Dan?
Did it occur to you, Freawaru, that if I wanted to “overflow that woodpecker thread everywhere else” I would have mentioned it in more than two other comment threads? Bear in mind: the thread was shut down. I merely expressed my desire that the thread be preserved for posterity and not taken apart, and I posted some factual clarifications for Don Baccus which I’m sure he would appreciate knowing about (if he truly cares about the ivory billed woodpecker).
My other reference was merely a fortuitous coincidence arising from Allen’s comment re Sagan.
I didn’t disrupt any conversations and I’m saddened that you would insinuate otherwise.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 15, 2006 @ 5:40 am
Hi Allen,
I’ve now had two comments deleted in an attempt to respond to your comment re Sagan:
BTW (and forgive me for going somewhat off-topic) has anyone noticed how quickly the opinions and writings of Carl Sagan have evaporated from the public and scientific arenas? … but Sagan…an historical curiosity at best.
Carl Sagan is alive and well and revered by lovers of science and skeptics in many communities. For example, this one: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
which uses a quote from Sagan right under its masthead: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” It’s not a law — just great advice!
There, hope this one gets through. Third times the charm!!!!
He is also referred to often on the Panda’s Thumb. As a research scientist, his skills were perhaps unremarkable. But as a popularizer and proponent of science, he was impressive.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 15, 2006 @ 5:42 am
Fascinating. Another young earth creationist ’scientist’ who is portrayed as having critiqued naturalistic evolution in a devastating manner :-)
Just as with Young Earth Creationists denying the sciences of geology, astrophysics, physics etc, arguments against evolution invariable rely on ‘evolution could not possibly have happened’ despite all the evidence that shows it did. And ID seems to embrace such people to pretend that there is a scientific controversy surrounding evolutionary theory relevant to ID. ID could doing something very controversial: Do science and show how ID can be a relevant scientific concept. That would truly be a devastating blow… :-)
Sanford at Wikipedia
Comment by PvM — June 20, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
if large sections of “junk DNA” have function, and further, if the removal of functional systems improves reproductive advantage, this would be another disproof (among many) of Darwin’s ideas.
This is a false and misleading statement. I challenge any of the moderators of this blog to defend the statement, as written.
Assuming this challenge goes unanswered, I challenge the moderators to please remove Sal’s comment to the bathroom wall where it belongs.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 26, 2006 @ 5:15 am
Are you serious? An omen? This is the problem with you IDiots. Once you accept that some beardy guy clicked his fingers and made the world in six days, you have no trouble believing there are fairies at the bottom of the garden and ‘omens’ in everything. It’s childish really.
Comment by John B — June 26, 2006 @ 10:11 am
Consider:
The missing element in every human ’solution’ is
an accurate definition of the creature.
The way we define ‘human’ determines our view
of self, others, relationships, institutions, life, and
future. Important? Only the Creator who made us
in His own image is qualified to define us accurately.
Many problems in human experience are the result of
false and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised
in man-made religions and humanistic philosophies.
Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe.
The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human
reason cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the
intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it
perceives and measures values.
Humanism makes man his own standard of measure.
However, as with all measuring systems, a standard
must be greater than the value measured. Based on
preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal
nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton
task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appe-
tites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.
Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament,
cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist
lacks a predictive capability. Without instinct or trans-
cendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with
foresight and vision for progression and survival. Lack-
ing foresight, man is blind to potential consequence and
is unwittingly committed to mediocrity, collectivism,
averages, and regression - and worse. Humanism is an
unworthy worship.
The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with
a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the
foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behav-
ior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and
validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a transcend-
ent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philo-
sophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and
thereby lack what only the Bible has:
1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.
The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival
equipment for today and the future.
Human is earth’s Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by
nature and nature’s God a creature of Choice - and of
Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive
characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural
foundation of his environments, institutions, and re-
spectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is orien-
ted to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the
universe.
- from The HUMAN PARADIGM
“True science knows no final answers; only on-going questions.” Dr. Henry Margenau, Physics Professor Yale U.
Comment by James Fletcher Baxter — August 19, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
“The true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being.
His duration reaches from eternity to eternity.
His presence from infinity to infinity.
He governs all things.”
Sir Isaac Newton
+ + +
…and He does not forbid questioning by totalitarian methods.
Comment by James Fletcher Baxter — August 19, 2006 @ 6:15 pm