-- Occam's Razor --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oftentimes, people invoke "Occam's Razor" (or 'the law of parsimony') in discussing Ivory-bill evidence. Occam's Razor is essentially the idea that, in science, given a choice of multiple explanations one ought to opt for the simplest of the choices. Of course if 'simplicity' had anything to do with it none of us would be here reading or writing on the internet today; we'd all still be unicellular organisms pleasantly floating around in a vast roiling sea. In actuality, as many scientists have noted, the world is brim-full of complexity.

But putting all that aside, which is the 'simpler' explanation for all the reported sightings of Ivory-bills over the years, and recordings that seem to match up acoustically to the only IBWO calls on record:

1. Is it that each-and-every single one of these sightings over time by different people in different places, at different times, under different circumstances, is either a case of mistaken identity or outright fraud or insanity, and that every single auditory encounter is likewise explainable by some other possible surmised sound?

OR, is not the simplest explanation, by far, that,

2. Ivory-bills live...

AGAIN (...and again and again and again and AGAIN), the only reason skeptics find the 2nd explanation NON-simple is because they begin with a presumption of Ivory-bill extinction for which solid evidence does not exist (you can't assume something extinct that hasn't even been looked for adequately; you can assume it rare, scarce, uncommon, unusual, endangered, if you like, BUT NOT extinct). Even Tanner with all his supposed expertise could never find the Ivory-bills which he believed existed in South Carolina and Florida (he only 'found' the ones a guide led him to in La.). Why are his successors presumed to be so much more skilled than he was...

We all learned Euclidean geometry in school. But, as many of you know, in NON-Euclidean geometry they alter just one of Euclid's initial axioms (presumptions), and end up with a hugely different geometry which physicists tell us actually more closely represents the reality of the universe and curved space. Still, kids are taught the Euclidean form because it is common-sensical and a close enough approximation for day-to-day use, even if WRONG overall!
Change the presumptions, and you change the conclusions/ deductions... and Occam really has little to do with it.

By the way, a reader sends in this link to a story of rare vultures and other endangered species suddenly being discovered in Cambodia (gosh, how many times each year does this happen?) --- or maybe Occam would see it as more likely a case of spontaneous regeneration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Fact Check --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions (that have NEVER been independently verified or authenticated):

Ivory-bills went extinct in the United States in the 1940s...
Ivory-bills require large tracts of virgin forest for survival...
There were less than 3 dozen Ivory-bills left in America when James Tanner did his study...
Ivory-bills require a large supply of wood-boring beetle larvae to survive...
There have been no photographs of a living (U.S.) Ivory-bill taken in the last 60 years...
The Luneau video shows a ___________________ (fill in whatever bird you want)...

And one can invent all the alternative explanations for sightings, sounds, reports, claims, etc. that one wishes --- still none of those explanations rise above the level of opinion and speculation.


FACTS:

Ivory-bills can fly.
Ivory-bills are suited for living in swamps, and in areas that humans don't frequent.
Ivory-bills spend time out-of-sight in woodland tree canopies.
Ivory-bills spend time inside tree cavities.
Ivory-bills have been reported 100's of times since the 1940's, including credible reports from credible observers, as well as reports whose credibility can't be easily adjudged one way or the other.
"Extraordinary" is a relative and highly subjective term, not a scientific term.
A large-scale, thorough search of all habitat that Ivory-bills might live in has never been carried out.
Humans are neither all-knowing nor infallible in their judgments.
Throughout the last century birds (and other creatures) believed extinct have been re-discovered.
It is unlikely that anyone will ever know when or where the last Ivory-billed Woodpecker in existence dies.
If there is 1 living Ivory-bill left than the species is NOT extinct... and, never has been.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Need a Job ? --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short notice, but Geoff Hill says he needs another birder for the Choctawhatchee search. The request reads as follows in his latest update(Feb 5), which also includes his contact information if genuinely interested and available:

"We have immediate need for a full-time searcher. Please contact me (Dr. Geoff Hill) ASAP stating birding experience, outdoor experience, and skill in a canoe or kayak. Also send names and contact numbers for two references. Searchers work on an eight-day rotation--six days living in a tent in the swamp and two days out. Pay is $1200/mo, no benefits, and the position is scheduled to last until May 31, 2007."

Obviously, no guarantees, but this could be the part-time job of a lifetime for any birder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Of Extinction and Ether --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ornithological McCarthyism continues to spill forth from some internet quarters, piling speculation upon unfounded speculation to discount IBWO evidence, and confusing mere alternative explanations for science. Tsk, tsk. By all appearances one 'skeptical' blogger (actually, he gives 'skepticism' a bad name) seems to be little more than a tool of right-wing ideologue interests and the Exxon P.R. Dept. (kinda like a certain dim-witted President we know of). Many skeptics/scoffers have painted themselves into corners of no escape by now, and so keep plowing forward, all-the-while wearing blinders (gee, again kinda like a certain prevaricating Vice-President). If an IBWO photo arrives the squirming should be fascinating to watch (...sort of like the squirming in the White House for outing a CIA operative while preaching patriotism, cough, cough).

The shaky belief in IBWO extinction is a bit reminiscent of the 100+ years of physicists' belief in "ether" as a permeating medium throughout the universe, used to account for various effects. They fit each new piece of knowledge or experimental finding to the pre-conceived notion of ether as long as they could, until finally in the early 20th century Einstein deduced once-and-for-all there simply was no ether. Never had been. Even in physics (far more rigorous than biology) pre-conceived suppositions are dangerously ensnaring entities. So too, this century, may the ethereal notion of Ivory-bill extinction plummet to the pseudoscientific graveyard, despite the efforts of those who must now be wishing it to be true.

On a very sad side-note: tornadoes that swept through central Florida Friday not only devastated many human lives, but also killed 18 young endangered Whooping Cranes in a safety enclosure, that had been led down to Fla. from Wisconsin. The storms probably did not affect the Florida areas harboring greatest IBWO potential, although the Suwannee area is not too far away.
Addendum: one of the 18 Whoopers was finally found alive some distance away (tracked by a radio transmitter it was wearing); not much consolation, but at least a piece of good news under the circumstances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Of Watched Pots and Ivory-bills --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'A watched pot never boils,' we are told, and there has rarely been a more watched pot than the search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Although news items continue to trickle forth they are mostly more of the same, or slight elaborations of previously-reported information --- still, people pounce on every new tidbit. My fear is that this 'watched pot' effect only lends a sense to many (skeptics primarily) that nothing much is happening and all is a waste of time. In fact, the serious search for this bird and for its photograph is FINALLY underway after 60 years of little coordinated effort. The 'patience' I've urged for 4 decades has never been more pertinent. We live in a world of instant-this and instant-that, but that's not how good science works.

I'm not sure yet, but to lessen this 'watched pot' sense, that makes time seem to drag on, I may lay back a tad from blogging the next couple of weeks (2-3 posts/wk. rather than 5-6), and just let the searchers do their work. February could be a very crucial month (but that's been true of the past Februarys as well). So if I go post-less more days than usual don't assume it means nothing is happening... NOR that it means something UNreportable is happening --- just means I'm practicing the patience I've preached. Folks can still use the links on my blog if they wish to search out any news items appearing. We'll just see what developments are forthcoming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- More From Dr. Hill --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hill's latest Auburn update recounts the ongoing deployment of remote cameras for their project, and explains the reasons they are using time-lapse cameras (which will generate a lot of data to sift through, essentially snapping a picture every 12 seconds during daylight hrs.) rather than motion-activated cameras as have been used in the Big Woods (AR.) --- apparently there is still room for debate over the advantages/disadvanatges of different camera set-ups. David Luneau will have an article addressing this topic in the forthcoming Mar/Apr edition of Birding Magazine.
If Dr. Hill's group is successful at photographically documenting the Ivory-bill, several of the techniques they are devising or refining may prove useful in future research endeavors with other species.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- No News Is OK News --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Dr. Hill's last update Ivory-bill news has been unusually slow (not much new on the Web nor in my emails). Of course we all know that can only mean 1 of 2 things: either there is nothing much newsworthy happening in the field... OR... there is SOMEthing noteworthy happening in the field : - )

In the meantime, to hold you over, here are a couple of weekend posts from "Erik Hendrickson" on the Ivory-bill Researchers' Forum in which he talks about a sighting he claims in Dec. 2005 in the Cache River area (AR.):

http://www.ibwo.net/forum/showpost.php?p=918&postcount=33

http://www.ibwo.net/forum/showpost.php?p=922&postcount=36

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Biding Time --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a couple of crass commercial sidebars while awaiting for any solid news to come along:

Current Ivory-billed Woodpecker items for sale on eBay are here.

...and, in deference to some acquaintances involved with Scienceblogs.com (interesting site, something for EVERYbody) I'll put in a plug for the "The Open Laboratory," the first annual anthology of outstanding science blog posts, just out (likely of interest to some of you, but nothing specifically to do with Ivory-bills):

Read about it here (I have no financial interest in it):

http://tailrank.com/1093958/The-Open-Laboratory

or order it from here.

....just maybe next year's edition will include a post on Campephilus principalis!

By now Cornell's 4-man mobile search team should be on board with Dr. Hill's group at the Choctawhatchee, assisting there for a couple of weeks, after being very impressed with parts of the Apalachicola region to the east. Keep in mind that their general mission is to evaluate areas for Ivory-bill potential and later make recommendations for places most needing further study (of course they could always cross paths with IBWOs in the process).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Dr. Mennill Explains Further --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, Dr. Mennill of the Auburn team further explains how they manage to achieve 24-hr. turnaround time on the analysis of bioacoustic data from the Choctawhatchee search site:

http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/biology/dmennill/IBWO/IBWO07News.html

In the end, these techniques just may prove crucial to attaining the desired photographic evidence... or not!?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- On and On It Goes --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is David Luneau's latest addition to his website (...just to keep 'rumor' fans with something to chew on : - ):

"Remote camera work is proceeding --- nothing exciting to report (yet). It keeps me too busy to keep this site updated as often as I would like to. I'll try to get some new pictures up soon."

Remote cameras (if enough of them are deployed) certainly represent possibly the single best source for an Ivory-bill photo. For the last 48 hrs. I've tried to track the photo rumors coming out of the Fla. Panhandle, but have found nothing substantive in that regard (lot of verbiage!). Possibly, a purported photo got turned in (as has happened repeatedly since Cornell's announcement), that is inconclusive. As for a definitive photo(s) I'm doubtful, but someone out there knows the truth, whatever it be. Or, maybe David will have some interesting "new pictures" up shortly... ; - )

And in other matters, Julie Zickefoose meets with Jerry Jackson here:

http://www.juliezickefoose.com/blog/2007/01/down-to-naples.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Rumors, Schmoomers --

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a little housecleaning on all the rumors business:

Back when the Tyler Hicks' sighting news broke it arrived at my computer early in the morning but 10 mins. after I had left for work. I arrived back home around 4 pm. to the news, and to a string of emails asking me why I wasn't covering the story. I'm trying to avoid that situation happening again. So...

In directing folks to monitor Dr. Hill's or any other website, it is my way of saying I expect to be away from the Net a lot, and in the event certain news should break, folks ought to monitor this-or-that-site (rather than mine).
In the latest instance, the Auburn folks are denying any photographic evidence as had been rumored, and Dr. Hill makes no mention of it in his latest post (although the rumor still has some legs). On a semantic note, whenever I refer to something as a "rumor" it is specifically because I can't find enough details, substantiation, or credibility to call it anything else. If I find (through multiple sources) some substance and credibility in it (raising it above rumor) I usually call it "information," such as 'information from a credible source', or 'information from someone close to the scene', or the like. In short, rumors are interesting, but not to be taken too seriously 'til they get to a higher level. It's a tough call between acknowledging certain rumors even cautiously, as a heads-up, on a blog (in the event they develop further), or ignoring them, knowing how they take on a life of their own once unleashed on the Web, which doesn't help matters... And the next few weeks/months could be a field day for rumors.

oooooh, gotta go, the State of the Union Address coming up... this oughta be good... for Letterman, Leno, Jon Stewart, Colbert....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 'Grandeur In This View Of Life' --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the literary-inclined out there, this prose/poetry offering from Rice English Professor Susan Wood:

http://cat.middlebury.edu/~nereview/wood.html


... and there are always rumors wafting around; I'll be away from a computer for large chunks of time, but just maybe, might possibly be worth monitoring Dr. Hill's 'update' site closely for the next 24-48 hrs...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Forget the Cake and 39 Candles --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You all know what's coming up in a couple of weeks, right.... NOOOO!, I don't mean the friggin' Super Bowl**.... Cyberthrush's 39+++++th birthday. So YO!, Auburn, Cornell, USF&W, Mike C., Uncle Louie, Tooth Fairy, whomever --- come on y'all, you know what I waaaaant... and no gift wrapping required.

** p.s. --- GO Bears!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- RTP, R.I.P. --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The previous post was primarily light humor, but also reflects my curiosity wondering what Roger Tory Peterson, dean of modern birders, would have to say about this heated Ivory-bill debate were he alive today. Diplomat, as well as expert that he was, I've little doubt (though others will disagree) that he would be squarely planted... in the middle, with a hopeful though wait-and-see attitude. He innately understood, moreso than many today, that birds are not static objects, but dynamic individuals, giving rise to unforeseeable possibilities however improbable at first glance. One simply can't always operate off the usual assumptions, and he knew that. Here is the letter he wrote back to Steve Sheridan in the 80's regarding Steve's unorthodox report of seeing Ivory-bills in Indiana (copied from Steve's site) --- a far more improbable claim in those days than many of the current claims being made today:

" I have received your letter and am intrigued. I have received perhaps a dozen letters similar to yours. I think it would be wise to let one of the top birders in your area of (state omitted, mentioned in detail later) know about your sightings and alert them so that your record, if valid, may be confirmed. If the forest is being logged there is scarcely anything that can be done. However, ivory-bills have the potential of moving considerable distances. Because of their special needs ivory-bills seem to be great rovers and not as sedentary as the pileated woodpecker. I am forwarding your letter to the editors of American Birds who can put you in touch with their regional editors for the area."

Notice the even-handedness and open-mindedness of these words; essentials of a REAL scientific attitude, in place of the certitude posed by today's critics where no certitude exists (the Luneau video hasn't even been close to debunked despite what skeptics continue to infer --- I don't even know that anyone else has analyzed it with anything like the thousands of dollars worth of equipment that Cornell has at their disposal).

Moreover, people often seem to relish critiquing and bringing down the 'Establishment,' authorities, experts or 'topdogs.' What else accounts for the glee some have exhibited in their denigration of Cornell the institution, as well as any number of the individuals involved in current claims? Again, I don't think Roger would have any of it; he would want the evidence explored to the fullest extent possible. In diplomacy they say "trust, but verify," and Roger would relate to that. In this debate the issue started off as one of defining what constituted that sufficient verification, but now in some quarters has moved on to sheer distrust, of the competency, motives, and honesty of those involved. This isn't the birding community Roger played such a major role in building.
RTP, R.I.P... maybe it is for the best that you aren't witnessing the current sound and fury.

And on a slightly related note, the April ABA Convention in La. will include a talk by David Sibley entitled "The Psychology of Bird identification" described as follows:

"Bird identification is the central challenge of birding, and we all strive to improve our skills and to identify more birds, more quickly and more accurately. Countless references and tools suggest that the birder who wants to avoid misidentifications should learn more about the fine points of plumage, molt, variation and subspecies, etc. But the fact is that most mistakes involve glitches in perception. No amount of preparation can prevent us from blurting out “Snowy Owl!” when the time is right and we see a white milk jug on the salt-marsh. Our brains, and the very short-cuts that we use successfully (most of the time) to identify birds, are also the source of most misidentifications. This workshop will focus on the psychological aspects of bird identification --- how we subconsciously use pattern-recognition, expectations, suggestion, and other clues -- and how those methods can lead us to misidentify birds with complete confidence. "

Now whadd'ya s'pose brought that on?

(...I'm not saying it isn't a worthwhile topic or that David won't give a good presentation, but just that, depending on the state of the IBWO search at that point, it seems custom-made to fan the flames of debate; might've been nice to have it countered with a talk on the psychology of gestalt perception, and the uncanny ability, overall predominance, and remarkably high accuracy, among experienced birders, of "GISS," in bird identification.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Bumper Sticker ??? --

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-- WWRTPD --

(what would Roger Tory Peterson do)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

-- How Can It Be --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Every ant knows the formula of its ant-hill; every bee knows the formula of its beehive. They know it in their own way, not in our way. Only humankind does not know its formula." -- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Sometimes I wonder how it is that two groups of people can look at essentially the same body of evidence and arrive at such different conclusions. In the Ivory-billed Woodpecker arena we all have access to the same info yet some conclude that the species likely still survives, and others believe with near certitude that it has been extinct for 60 years (and a range of opinions in-betwixt). What is going on here?

Part of the explanation may lie in fundamentally different underlying views of the natural world (this won't apply to all in the debate, but possibly to some). Many people, consciously or not, see humans as the center of the natural world, the kingpin, the apex of creation and complexity, lone masters of Nature. All other lifeforms are, by comparison, little automatons, to be understood, categorized, quantified, and made predictable to the all-knowing human mind. For such folks, the Ivory-bill is just one of those many knowable, predictable, understandable simple forms. We comprehend it and its behavior, because that's what we do as humans, and because, afterall, it's just a 'dumb' creature. Tsk, tsk...

But living things ARE NOT billiard balls or planetary objects easily studied with precision as in physics. The variables involved in biology, are unimaginably complex, innumerable, resistent to precise study or control. They swirl with unseen connections and influences. Some of us thusly see humans, as but one thread in that overall web of life, no more or less central than any other (actually, if all humans perished tomorrow, the Earth would get along swimmingly well; if all bacteria died tomorrow life on this planet would largely perish --- which living form is really more important, or more central, biologically speaking?). All life is essentially inscrutible; an amoeba or a cicada may be as mysterious and complex, as any human out there; even knowing genetic codes does not get us very far, any more than knowing the alphabet and phonetics of a language yields much insight into the grammar, semantics, richness or complexity of that language. How much difference really would an extraterrestial being, a million years more advanced than us, see between humans and cicadas objectively observing both from afar?

So there is much too much I'm unwilling to presume to know, that others seem to presume they DO know, about the Ivory-billed Woodpecker to reach the conclusions they have reached. I DO know the bird's history is one of being written off prematurely time and time again, by those who thought they knew more than they did. Until you recognize the Ivory-bill (or any other creature), for the deeply complex form it is, it's easy to be deceived by one's own intellect into quick answers. "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing," it is said, and also, "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Of course, one of these times the pessimists are bound to be right, and the Ivory-bill really will be gone. I just don't see any sign we're there yet... and I'm looking at the same data they are, but, looking at it stripped of many of their ever-present human preconceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Auburn Update --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New update from Dr. Hill here, with emphasis on the 24-hr. turnaround time they are attempting with acoustic data turned in from automatic recording units in the field; never before accomplished in IBWO searching and hopefully leading to quicker, more efficient stationing of searchers as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- What Be The Chances --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just checked in with my Las Vegas bookie, Vinnie Boom ('The Shark') O'Bromowitz, this weekend, to get the current odds for various folks getting a conclusive Ivory-bill photo/video this search season, and uhhhh, here's what he tells me:


Geoff Hill -- 6:1
Tyler Hicks -- 7:1
Martjan Lammertink -- 8:1
David Luneau -- 10:1
Jerry Jackson -- 12:1
Bobby Harrison -- 14:1
Tim Gallagher -- 15:1
Brian Rolek -- 16:1
Mike Collins -- 17:1
Van Remsen -- 19:1
John Fitzpatrick -- 21:1
Some guy named "Dunne" -- 23:1
A female -- 25:1
Marty Stauffer -- 500:1
Any teenager with a cell-phone camera -- 799:1
David Sibley -- 800:1
Brad Pitt -- 2100:1
Cheech OR Chong -- 8000:1
Anybody named Jebediah -- 9999:1
Regis Philbin -- million:1
Beyonce -- billion:1
Homer Simpson -- ?????:1
T. Nelson -- googol:1
None of the above (...but someone else) -- 5:1

(Mind you though, Vinnie has been wrong before; he picked Detroit in the World Series last year; what a bozo)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------