Your null hypothesis is flawed, not Cornell's. Scientists -- including Cornell scientists -- have been tracking down alleged Ivory Bill sightings in Arkansas, Lousiana, even Cuba, for decades since the last sighting in the Tensas in the 1940s. The potential importance of any sighting (is the species extinct or not) has been the same since the 1940s.
What you are asking the rest of us to believe is that Cornell scientists suddenly got much more biased than they were a couple of years ago when they tried to track it down in a swamp near Baton Rouge (when they did not report seeing an Ivory Bill). How do you explain a sudden spike in bias among the same research team in a year or so? You are also confusing observations with hypothesis tests. I challenge anyone to come up with a truly objective hypothesis test for our own existence, much less that of the Ivory Bill. How can we be sure we are nothing more than an illusion, since we are clearly biased observers in this case? On the other hand, to argue that there is insufficient evidence for our own existence defies common sense. The nature of fieldwork generally precludes the collection of ideal data. Maps are inaccurate, compass readings fluctuate, DBH tapes are misaligned or at the wrong height, sampling equipment may get contaminated, and almost no one can obtain a truly random sample in a natural environment. Photos are improperly exposed, or slightly out of focus. People fall in water, and fragile equipment in their hands gets damaged as a result. So what if the video evidence of the Ivory Bill is less than ideal? You can't set up a video camera with a suitable lens on a tripod in a canoe without capsizing the boat. The emphasis on obtaining high-quality images defies logic -- experienced photographers and videographers struggle sometimes for years to get an ideal shot. Lets suppose the Ivory Bill was last seen in 1902, then spotted by a research team in 1965. The observations by the Cornell team would not have aroused the same level of controversy. We've become spoiled by technology, expecting it to replace the human element of scientific observation. Data obtained by better technology would be nice, but ultimately there is no substitute for our own observational and interpretive skills. Dave ------------------------------------------------------ David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com ------------------------------------------------------ "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of stan moore Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: opinion: Cornell confuses technology analysis with the scientific method In extraordinary cases of bird identification, such as where a bird long thought extinct is "rediscovered" (ex. ivory-billed woodpecker), a very high standard of proof is required. Eyesight records do not rise to that level of proof for several reasons (has Michael Jackson been sited in YOUR neighborhood lately?) The Cornell team of collaboratos and employees have used techology-oriented data to build their case for the detection of this species, claiming that their review of the sound and video recording data proves their case, even though the quality of the raw data is very poor. The Cornell team admits the audio data were dubious, and then retreated back to the video data. But the video data are so hard to interpret that experts and teams of experts disagree by 180 degrees as to what those data prove. Does generating a null hypothesis by a team invested in the outcome of an inquiry constitute the beginnings of an appropriate use of the scientific method? How objective could such a team be in their interpretation of the results of that inquiry when so much was on the line? Obviously trained scientists were involved in this situation, who knew that they should be unbiased, but in a case with such publicitity ramifications, such financial ramifications, and such conservation ramifications, what is the likelihood of the bias of self-interest affecting the very ability of a party to make a truly unbiased analysis that would then be used to justify many sorts of actions involving the self-interest of the decision makers? I do not believe Cornell's team is dishonest, but I fear they are biased and have been since the beginning of their investigation of the presence and the rediscovery of the ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas. Human nature is part of the scientific process, for better or for worse in cases such as this. And hindsight is always clearer than real-time vision. There appeared to be a knee jerk reacation to the pending premature announcement of the ivory-bill rediscovery. A near panic facilitated the rush to print of the original article in Science by Fitzpatrick et al. But was this reaction really necessary for the sake of the species, long thought to be extinct, but the subject of previous sighting claims, including within the previous few years? Why exactly was it necessary for a flurry of action, including publication of a scientific paper, purchase of conservation lands, etc.? Had not other sightings been made public within prior months? What was the "emergency" reason to rush to publication, etc.? It seems hard to believe that this knee-jerk reaction was entirely justified by the interest of a bird presumed to be extinct. Surely the bird would survive another flurry of publicity. The fact that a scientific publication was rushed into publication should raise a warning flag regarding the quality of science involved, especially with such non-definitive data of extremely low quality. Hindsight tells us it would have been far more scientifically credible for Cornell and for Science to proceed in one of two ways. First, it would have been possible to take the video and sound evidende for addiitional interpretation by unbiased reviewers who did not have input from Cornell as to the meaning of the evidence, particularly the video evidence. The video should have been provided to experts without labeling and asked for analysis of what the video represented. If a clear consensus could not be agreed on, the video should have been treated as suggestive, but not definitive and the paper not published at all. Or, the Cornell team could have taken the independent analysis of experts and acknowledged the uncertainty of the data and stated in clear terms that it may prove the existence of this species, that Cornell believes the video was adequately definitive, while acknowledging the uncertainty of others, and thus stating that the ivory-bill may exist in the wild. But I believe that the bias of the Cornell team drove a different and flawed route to an opinion and publication. Science was complicit. The evaluation by Sibley and others should have been required prior to the original publication, and the opinions of the Sibley team included in the original publication, with a different tone in the original conclusion. Now as they say, Cornell is "in a pickle". Their "backs are up". Careers are completely committed to stated irreversible positions because personal certainty has completely overridden the need for unbiased, objective scientific analysis. I would not be surprised if careers end prematurely over this situation, which is rooted in well-meaning bias, but bias nonetheless. And intransigent bias is even less appropriate in scientific inquiry. Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
