I thought that being wrong was also part of the scientific process? If it turns out that Cornell was correct, should we then say that their critics lost credibility instead? Regardless of your (or my) opinion of whether the woodpeckers exist, which I suspect they don't, I don't think credibility should be so cheaply held.
Cheers, Shane Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent those of his employer. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of stan moore > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Cornell's unwarranted level of certainty in the > ivory-billed woodpecker debate is disturbing > << snipped >> > >I am sad to say that, in my view, Cornell's > >intransigence is costing Cornell precious credibility. > >The ivory-billed woodpecker has damaged credibility of > previous claimed > >viewers, but apparently the deep lessons of the past remain > unlearned. > >This dispute cannot be resolved with existing evidence. And > >prolonged, intensive searching has not produced > >additional, definitive evidence. > > > >Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
