-- A Dangerous Idea? --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I seem to be promoting a number of books/writers lately who I happen to enjoy, so yet another: Over the last 10+ years, (nonscientist) John Brockman has edited several wonderful anthologies of short essays by top-notch scientists/thinkers on all manner of cutting edge thought. In fact he runs a website, edge.org, that brims with mind-expanding offerings from major scientists for lay readers (and each other). I just picked up his latest volume, in which scientists were asked to pose a "dangerous idea" they had that just might turn out to be true (in a sense, these are largely ideas that might prove to be scientifically valid, but 'culturally' or 'politically incorrect.').

Anyway, in leafing through the book, it occurred to me that for many the idea of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker yet being alive in multiple locales and having escaped human detection for decades, may in fact be a 'dangerous idea' (ok, not truly in the sense Brockman uses it) --- the notion that so many (humans), could've been so mistaken, for so long a time, about such a significant case, is just too much for some scientists (especially if they're in that group) to acknowledge as a real possibility, and they cling to the more comforting and committed view that the species is extinct, lest ornithological gospel and texts have to be re-written. Indeed, if they are wrong in this instance, how many other long-held beliefs about animal behavior/cognition/adaptation are wrong as well...? But in actuality this is often how science progresses, not by being right all the time, but by discovering where it is wrong, and working to avert such error in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Again, Into the Mire --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a post entitled "Walking through the Luneau mire" Bill Pulliam once again walks us through his interpretation of the Luneau video, or maybe more appropriately, the Luneau artifacts and shadows; interesting, if only because his view doesn't totally coincide with Cornell, let alone with any of the skeptics. But clearly folks will take issue with some of his notions (at least folks who can bear to read any more Luneau analysis... and we're still waiting to get the official Cornell rebuttal to Collinson as well). I continue to believe that the issues are unresolvable, and that yes, it is possible under some circumstances for a Pileated to appear IBWO-like in fuzzy video (though based on the amount and positioning of white on the Luneau bird, the 'oaring' motion of wings, and wingbeat frequency, "Ivory-bill" remains the best fit for that particular blurry image). What is important is that people realize we are still dealing with a very open question here, and not permit skeptics their rashness of referring to the Luneau video as "debunked." Neither it, nor any of the Cornell sightings, nor any published sightings since, have even been close to debunked, just because it is possible to manufacture alternative explanations. Oh and by the way, let me tell you what really happened when the American Gov't. claimed they landed men on the moon...

One thing I do wonder though, is to what degree the so-called "Sibley" position, was actually generated by his co-authors, and David granted first-authorship simply to add more gravitas to their case (and if that was the plan, it worked!) --- David is recognized for his on-site field expertise, which doesn't even necessarily translate to any more skill in interpreting blurry film than possessed by any number of amateurs out there, let alone the team at Cornell. And on and on it goes....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- FWIW --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of interest, this posting by Harry LeGrand on the Carolina birding listserv:

http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/CARO.html#1175046101

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

--"Awareness of how little we really know and understand" --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, just another diversion today, to a blog post by one of my favorite science writers, Chet Raymo, (not directly IBWO-related, and yet, I would argue, not entirely disconnected either):

http://www.sciencemusings.com/blog/2007/03/shaving-close.html

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

-- Whatever... --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
News story on the Texas Big Thicket Ivory-bill search here:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2007/03/25/3829397-ap.html

Update on Choctawhatchee acoustic detections from Dr. Mennill here:

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

And cyberthrush rant here:

The Ivorybill debate includes ongoing disputes over blurry video, large cavities, interesting sounds, foraging signs, and other evidence that can be analyzed to death to little avail. My own quarrel with most skeptics though, boils down to more basic differences in perception: skeptics see "birders" as a large group of folks who, over time, have thoroughly surveyed prospective IBWO habitat; I see a relatively small group who only rarely venture into the more remote and interior portions of such habitat. Skeptics perceive 60 years without a clearcut photograph as a lengthy period of time; I see it as an insignificant amount of time, given the relatively recent emphasis on and availability of photography to most birders. Skeptics assume the Ivory-bill extinct and operate off that presumption; I've seen NO solid evidence for such an assumption and proceed otherwise. Though I typically view glasses as half-empty where others see them as half-full, in this lone instance the tables are turned, and skeptics see a glass as 9/10's empty, which I see clearly as 4/5's full!

Oddly, in all of this, IBWO skeptics seem to accept unblinkingly the validity and usefulness of routine bird counts, bird lists, species taxonomy and classification, most data in journal articles --- all of which I believe worthy of skepticism. But the one thing which carries weight for me, is the one thing they routinely dismiss: confident, repeated sightings of Ivory-bills by credible observers, who are well-acquainted with Pileated Woodpeckers, and who don't merely say, "I think I saw an Ivory-bill," or "I may have seen an Ivory-bill," but quite directly, "I SAW an Ivory-billed Woodpecker." I'm not talking here of the 100s (maybe by now 1000s) of reports by less credible figures over the years, which ARE indeed mostly cases of mistaken identification, but am referring to the residue of dozens of reports across locales, across decades, and under varying circumstances, by experienced individuals who fully understand the seriousness of the claims they make, and feel certain of the sight they've seen. If all these individuals, with their credentials, are wrong time and time again, they are not merely 'mistaken,' as skeptics politely assert, but they must be, as skeptics surely believe, foolish, to account for SUCH a magnitude of error. One can argue the nuances of a video back-and-forth for the next decade, but faced with a knowledgeable person who tells you that they know they saw an Ivory-bill, you can only call them a liar or a fool... or, believe them; that is the fundamental choice before us.

So skeptics resort to notions of "groupthink," "wishful thinking," "self-fulfilling prophecy," arising over and over and over again, to explain this succession of errors, as if THIS is of higher probability than a bird simply being extant in wide expanses of habitat and evading documentation for decades (as other birds have done, and continue to do); so biased are they by an unsubstantiated notion of species-extinction and self-imposed reliance on photographic evidence --- and so (falsely) convinced are they of the thoroughness and infallibility of past human searches (...truly something to be skeptical of).

If there were NO sounds, cavities, and signs of interest it would cast a shadow on the plausibility of sightings, and so I am glad they are there and being studied, but they will not yield the definitive answers sought. 'Sightings' by knowledgeable observers, are what always have and will be, the crux of birding --- has any other species ever been reported so repeatedly and then been shown to be extinct? And should that indisputable photo or video arise 3 months or 3 years from now, what words will skeptics then use: "miraculous," "extraordinary," "incredible," "astonishing".... or the only word that might actually be apropos... "inevitable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Articles --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Ivory-bill article from long-time birder/writer Jim Williams here:

http://www.startribune.com/418/v-print/story/1065193.html

And story on biologist and Cornell volunteer Leah Filo (including audio) here:

http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news.php?getnewsfordate=1&mm=03&dd=23&yyyy=2007#8902
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Snowflakes... Off-topic, Maybe Not --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of my readers sends in this surprisingly long N.Y. Times article on snowflakes (specifically, giant ones):

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/snowflakes-as-big-as-frisbees/20070320114909990001

Pertains to probabilities and rare occurrences... the very last line from an amateur weather watcher certainly applies to the IBWO saga:

“It’s a matter of being at the right place at the right time,” Mr. Close said of the unusual show. “Sometimes you get lucky.”

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