--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose one looks at a typical collection of 100 Ivory-bill reports/claims... Some skeptics, even without much knowledge of the sighters, will quickly discount all 100 claims based on the presumption that Ivory-bills are likely extinct... and create alternative explanations for the claims willy-nilly.
On-the-other-hand, in reviewing 100 typical reports I'm more likely to find 60-70 that don't seem credible (to me), 5-10 that are credible enough for further study, and the remainder (which is a significant chunk) neither believable nor discreditable based on available details --- and therefore also in need of further scrutiny.
The point is that each and every sighting ought be adjudged independently based on the merits of it's own circumstances and the skills/experience of the observers, not dealt a knee-jerk reaction based on presupposition as is too often the case. And some claims remain forever of uncertain credibility, which does not mean they are not credible, but only that certain information is lacking to tell.
Skeptics insist on saying that it is up to sighters to 'prove' their case... but it is just as true that skeptics must 'prove' their case, faced with so many repeated reports over the years. They must illustrate the inexperience, dishonesty, incompetence, or foolhardiness of all those who feel certain of their claims; one cannot simply postulate or assume these qualities for individuals without any basis for doing so. Casting such aspersions with no demonstrated basis is simply too easy.
It is one thing if someone merely says, "I think I may have seen an Ivory-bill;" it is quite another when someone states, "I'm sure I saw an Ivory-bill." Either show me such an individual's lack of bird knowledge or their previous history of error-proneness, rash conclusions, delusionary nature, prankish tendencies, or outright pathology... or, if you can't do that, then you really have little to offer on the matter; maybe best just to remain silent.
On a sidenote, Cornell's 'Team Sapsucker' won the World Series of Birding for a second straight year with 230 species (...that is, if any of them are to be believed), here and here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 comments:
Dear Cyberthrush, Please. You don't realize how much you sound like Tony Snow, the current Bush White House press-hack who makes up biased crap as a smoke-screen for the lack of evidence or worse. Give it up. This isn't about presumption of extinction, it's about the fact that each and every claim, judged independently (we agree that's important), is weak and of only fleeting glimpses that leave us with no way to *know* what the observer saw. We know what they thought they saw. Leave it at that and stop using belittling tactics that place you squarely in the Karl Rove camp of political persuasion.
To anonymous
I have to say I may agree with you on fleeting glimpses or maybe even 99 percent sightings.
However, when someone has a 100 certain sighting with multiple field marks, it is hard to forget that. I can understand a person being skeptical if they have never seen one of these birds, but I in having had two excellent sightings, just cannot discount all these other sightings.
Some sightings are obvious mistaken identity, some may be dishonesty................but some are just to credible to be mistakes. I can understand if you choose to say my sightings are not current (from the 1970s), but my sighting data recorded too many small details not recorded in books of the time to be dismissed out of hand.
I recorded (among other things) two extremely specific field marks in my notes that I, myself, questioned for many years. When I first had the opportunity to examine museum specimens of Ivorybills, lo and behold, the specific field marks I recorded were blatantly obvious on these museum specimens. These field marks were huge massive claws (oversize like raptor claws, much bigger than Pileated) and a very pronounced groove on the upper bill (not present in Pileated).
Both field marks were recorded long before the news release of the Cornell Ivorybill in Arkansas. I have documentation of reporting this data back to the early 1980s.
I strongly suspect these birds are still with us, but I can personally guarantee you they where still with us up to 1978.
sincerely, Steve Sheridan
Amusing that you accuse Cyberthrush of "making up biased crap" and engaging in Rovian tactics in what is essentially a Rovian style attack of your own. You say that each and every claim, judged independently (we agree this is important). . .is weak and only of fleeting glimpses" -- a classically Rovian projective manoeuvre.
Have you reviewed each and every claim? Over how many of the last 60 years? At least three come immediately to mind that were not "fleeting glimpses" -- Steve Sheridan's, David Kulivan's and the one reported by TRE329 on birdforum and ibwo.net. There are probably other examples, but in any case, your assertion about "fleeting glimpses" is flatly false.
As for independent judgment, you might look at what the Arkansas Records Committe has to say:
http://www.arbirds.org/ivory_billed_woodpecker.html
At least 4 out 5 members voted to accept the record. That's an independent judgment, and judgments of records committees are generally respected and accepted in the birding world. I guess you just ignore independent judgment when it doesn't fit your worldview. . .kinda reminiscent of the way most members of the current administration approach the world, innit?
I wonder what you make of LolaGal's alleged sighting.
salar53
when this IBWO saga began (after Cornell's announcement) there were several attempts by scammers to get free video equipment based on such IBWO claims; in my experience if you simply gave such claimants the name and ph. number of a birder in their area who could verify their claims you never heard from them again. 'LolaGal's' initial post had all the earmarks of such a scam, and nothing I've seen posted since changes my opinion, though as always I'm perfectly willing to alter my opinion given new information/details. If not a scam then almost certainly a case of mistaken ID.
Post a Comment