—————————————————
“Always remain open minded…. just not so open-minded that your brain falls out.”
— old maxim attributed to various writers
Hopefully, last post on this theme and then on to other things… I may briefly talk of the ACONE system (used in the Big Woods) in next post… IF anyone out there was involved with it, I’d love to know if anything like it has been deployed anywhere since (for IBWO searching) or has it been mothballed???….
Way back when this saga began I thought that all claims, stories, sightings, etc. should be put out on the internet for the hivemind of the Web to see and judge… the cream would rise to the top. It was an attitude many bloggers held back then — the whole point of the internet being to let everyone have their say from which truth would emerge. Hahhh (look at the internet today)! Early on, as many remember, the IBWO debate quickly devolved into vitriol on birding sites, trolls and misfits often holding sway...
Back in those days a lot of active IBWO information was being held close-to-the-vest (by USFWS, Cornell, others). I wasn’t fond of that at the time, but appreciate it more in retrospect, because frankly no doubt much of it was junk information. The “hivemind” of the Web isn't always a smooth-running lean machine, nor a pleasant place. The fact is that MOST IBWO claims are mistakes (largely well-intentioned, but not always). If all claims being made had been published (with no rapid followups confirming them), it would’ve simply made IBWO searchers look foolish (…well, MORE foolish than many already perceived them). Several early optimists for the Ivorybill no doubt turned skeptical because of the sheer volume of claims they received that could never be confirmed, and in many cases made little sense (it was right outside my kitchen window, or on my suet feeder, or downtown on a telephone pole, or in my Wisconsin backyard etc.). It’s the ‘boy who cried wolf’ syndrome… cry wolf enough times with no wolf appearing, and pretty soon it’s hard to take the cries seriously. I'm not sure more recent entrants to Ivorybill discussion always grasp that sheer volume of false prior claims.
And that is now my concern about the spread of weak IBWO reports in social media — whether they are from 20 years ago, 10 years ago, or 2 weeks ago — while many may find them interesting, they likely do more harm than good; producing more skeptics than believers, at least among serious birders and scientists. Perceptions are important and I always try to understand/anticipate the perceptions of skeptics, not just the perception of believers inside their own bubble. If 90 or 95% of claims are false, it’s easy to generalize to 100% -- it may be a fallacy, but it's a natural one.
Of 1000s of enthusiasts frequenting IBWO discussions on social media, only a small percentage seem to be knowledgeable birders or scientists. Reports that come in rarely have the detail or content that an experienced birder would know to include — the average John Doe has no clue how to write up a decent birding or scientific report of an unusual or rare species. When unknown people send me sketchy reports of birds they just KNOW are Ivorybills I write back with a list of fairly basic questions for more info, and 90% of the time I never hear back from them. The few who respond, get a second smaller set of questions, at which point almost no one replies further. Not encouraging! Folks, if you’re going to report an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, you are going to be grilled. As Harry would’ve said, ‘If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.’
In short, all I’m saying is that the ongoing plethora of reports, including loads of Pileated (and Red-headed) Woodpeckers ID’d as Ivorybills that have sprung forth in the last decade (including being proudly sent to USFWS), have NOT helped the “believer” cause — it’s not a good look for us! Instead they reinforce and strengthen the skeptical case of how easily and frequently people make mistakes. The current joke is that a photo can only be an IBWO if it is blurry or less than 6 pixels. Of course, here and there, are instances of really intriguing, promising bits of evidence (I think); my fear is of those getting drowned out by all the extraneous chaff that can be distracting. There’s no way to stop bogus reports from showing up, and it’s even possible a weak claim one day turns out to be true, or a series of weak claims suddenly show a pattern (like coming from the same limited area). So I have no solution to the dilemma of bad reports overwhelming good reports — believers will continue to feel that skeptics are not open-minded enough, while skeptics think believers have allowed their brains to fall out ;). Meanwhile, just stay focused, think critically, and keep your eyes on the prize, I guess….
—————————————————
