It's rare, so let's dissect it for science.....

[Occidentalis]

We've provided the resources by which you can get the answers to these questions, but you dismiss them as self serving, so thus unacceptable. There isn't really anything else we can do, this isn't a discussion if you're unwilling to accept or read the literature. We have these experts with expert opinions and peer reviewed literature telling you it's okay, here are sources and studies that back this up, but still there is this insistence that ignorance is just as good as a large body of knowledge. Distrust of science isn't uncommon for us so you haven't hurt our feelings, it's nothing personal, but it really embodies the heart of the anti-climatechange anti-intellectualism movement in America.

You can find out how many specimens, at least vertebrates, through vert net. Exactly 0 have been collected as trophies.

It's heart breaking to lose the potential knowledge, to lose a record that could and can be used to understand so much about the animal and spearhead conservation efforts. There are so many links in these articles that demonstrate this, this is getting repetitive and is starting to seem like willful ignorance. I get that your opinion on scientific collecting differs but the points you're making to support it are refuted by the literature. We can't help you understand if our only way of doing so, by referencing scientific papers, is unacceptable. There is literally no way. It's like asking us to prove climate change but without using any scientific papers. Rather than combat the actual issue, climate change deniers use the same exact argument - science is self serving, group of cronies, etc. Very frustrating.

 

[HerpEnthusiast3]

This is a hot topic. Little to amped up for me. Not exactly conducive to any intellectual or scientific conversation. My point was that I feel science focuses in on the wrong things. We have NASA tossing people into space and there's still so much we dont know about are own oceans. Now we have a thread about a scientist killing a bird to dissect it In the hopes to glean enough information to save the species..... Wouldn't trying to mitigate habitat loss and maybe trying to address accelerated global warming be a better option to help save this species and many others in question. Even if we bring back a few thousand more of these birds in the coming decades won't humanities encroachment upon the natural environment eventually erode that progress? It seems to me to be misplaced efforts.

 

[snowgyre]

George, this is part of the process. Conservation is multi-staged. The first stage is simply understanding and document what is present in an area, which is what this scientist did. You can't conserve what you don't know exists. We are spoiled in the United States because of the quality of wildlife science, data, and information available to us. This is not so in other parts of the world. This situation is case-in-point. A locally common species was reported as extremely rare simply because western science knew little about it, because western scientists had not explored the area fully until now.

 

[WebSlave]

We've provided the resources by which you can get the answers to these questions, but you dismiss them as self serving, so thus unacceptable. There isn't really anything else we can do, this isn't a discussion if you're unwilling to accept or read the literature. We have these experts with expert opinions and peer reviewed literature telling you it's okay, here are sources and studies that back this up, but still there is this insistence that ignorance is just as good as a large body of knowledge. Distrust of science isn't uncommon for us so you haven't hurt our feelings, it's nothing personal, but it really embodies the heart of the anti-climatechange anti-intellectualism movement in America.

You can find out how many specimens, at least vertebrates, through vert net. Exactly 0 have been collected as trophies.

It's heart breaking to lose the potential knowledge, to lose a record that could and can be used to understand so much about the animal and spearhead conservation efforts. There are so many links in these articles that demonstrate this, this is getting repetitive and is starting to seem like willful ignorance. I get that your opinion on scientific collecting differs but the points you're making to support it are refuted by the literature. We can't help you understand if our only way of doing so, by referencing scientific papers, is unacceptable. There is literally no way. It's like asking us to prove climate change but without using any scientific papers. Rather than combat the actual issue, climate change deniers use the same exact argument - science is self serving, group of cronies, etc. Very frustrating.

Well, you see, I guess my opinion of what you are suggesting as reading material is basically playing poker with a bunch of guys that are using a stacked deck. If all the scientific papers are written by the self same scientists that are following the current status quo of apparently treating living organisms as merely packets of "data", then why would I bother sitting in on that card game? You would only be handing me the cards that you know would help you to win the game anyway. My bet is those papers are only ALLOWED to be written by insider scientists anyway, and any contrary opinion would never make it into print.

So does this mean that my opinion on this matter has to mean that I am less intellectual and more ignorant than you are of a contrary opinion? Perhaps that is a big part of the problem. Being a "scientist" automatically makes someone so much smarter and less ignorant of EVERYTHING simply because they wear that cap?

And if you want to bring this around to so called "climate deniers", perhaps that perspective is a bit cock-eyed as well. A LOT of people, myself included are not denying that the climate is changing. What we are having trouble accepting is that this is a UNIQUE situation in the history of the Earth and we can only be saved from it by government action in the form of raised taxes, reductions in freedoms, and policy changes that will very likely increase the costs of energy used to run our technically based, energy hungry, society that we now pretty much take for granted. And personally, I don't even think this is science based as much as it is politically driven. But that's just me. I lived through the 70s when the scientists warned us of an impending global cooling and coming ice age. I didn't stock up on thermal underwear. I squeeked through the latest global warming threats too. And I didn't buy stock in air conditioners or house boats. And now the latest is just a more broader based, no less scary "climate CHANGE", meaning, I guess, that any CHANGE to the environment is catastrophic and the government BETTER do something about it! They don't know whether it is going to get hotter, colder, wetter, or drier, but it's GOT to be bad no matter what!

Seriously, if the same sort of scientists that are claiming this boogie man climate change thing is imminent are the same breed that give us the 10 day weather forecast, well, need I say more?

And if the equivalence of "trust us, we are the government" is running lock step with "trust us, we are scientists", well, I'm sorry, that trust has not been earned, in my opinion. I'm sure there are good scientists as well as good politicians, but more and more, they both are appearing to become more and more cut from the same cloth.

So back to the topic here, sorry, but no. Based on what has been presented by and about that guy who pickled that kingfisher, I believe that it was not necessary at all to treat that admittedly rare bird as a packet of data instead of a living organism, and in my personal opinion was done to advance his own career by giving him a darn good "scientific" paper to write about his victim. Seriously, the guy claims that he THINKS he identified 6 pairs merely by the calls (and sure, anyone can tell individuals of a rare species like that by merely hearing their calls at a distance in order to make that sort of determination ) and figures it is OK to kill off 16.6% of the KNOWN population. The ONLY male ever, EVER "taken" for a collection, no less.

Anyway, if my contrary opinion makes me ignorant and considered as an imbecile in the circles you run in, then I am proud to wear those labels in comparison to the actions I see that other camp engaging in. You apparently are under the delusion that I am incapable of understanding the issues simply because I disagree with them. Regardless of the number of like "scientists" that tote that party line you are carrying the banner for. It appears to me that it is incomprehensible to you that anyone COULD disagree with you and NOT be ignorant and an imbecile.

I'm OK with that. I'll sleep well tonight, regardless.

And trust me fella, I'm not a scientist because I COULDN'T be one.

 

[WebSlave]

George, this is part of the process. Conservation is multi-staged. The first stage is simply understanding and document what is present in an area, which is what this scientist did. You can't conserve what you don't know exists. We are spoiled in the United States because of the quality of wildlife science, data, and information available to us. This is not so in other parts of the world. This situation is case-in-point. A locally common species was reported as extremely rare simply because western science knew little about it, because western scientists had not explored the area fully until now.

Which means that they really didn't have a CLUE about how large the population really is. Hate to belabor this point, but that IS the point.

 

[Occidentalis]

People can disagree, but do it in an informed way. Invoking cronyism is not such a way. That's what I have a problem with.

Here is how you disagree in a way that is productive: http://www.ecoservices.asu.edu/pdf/Minteer et al, Science (2014).pdf

But then see: https://www.dmns.org/media/2106160/190-science2014.pdf and http://biology.unm.edu/Witt/pub_files/Science-2014-Rocha-814-5.pdf

There is such thing as an expert opinion - What you're saying is that despite being uninformed, you're able to make a decision on how ethical and useful collecting this bird was, and that your opinion is as valid - better even - as that of people who have trained in this field for years and years, and have been working in the area for decades. I am saying that it is not, that's all. I'm also not asking you to trust - I only did that as a last ditch appeal after providing mountains of empirical data. This is what I'm talking about - http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

As far as climate change - scientists make no claims on what your taxes should be or what rules should be followed. That's not their job and they don't usually venture past that. They report evidence towards facts, make basic interpretations, and predict models/outcomes, they don't make policy. I think you're confused about what science is and what scientists do. I don't watch much, but I've noticed a lot of the media doesn't report it well, particularly Fox.
Climate science is also quite a bit more complicated than some secondhand reporter calling something cooling, warming, or change. Change is the best word so that's what it got labeled as most recently. Parts of the climate will cool, others will warm - results confirmed as we gained more data and increased computing power. Changing your position based on available data is something that's not detrimental in science. As far as scientists having no idea what is happening where, here's models of current and future climate scenarios over the next 100 years at 10' resolution https://www.climond.org/BioclimRegistry.aspx - to say that we have no idea what is going on is absurd anti-climate change rhetoric.

 

[WebSlave]

People can disagree, but do it in an informed way. Invoking cronyism is not such a way. That's what I have a problem with.

I see. And who is it that determines what an "informed way" actually is? And I suppose and official "scientific" definition of "informed" is a requirement as well?

Cronyism? Where did that come from in this discussion? Oh, do you mean in scientific circles where everyone will close ranks to support each other's careers to have theirs supported in turn? Well, yeah, I have a problem with that as well.

Here is how you disagree in a way that is productive: http://www.ecoservices.asu.edu/pdf/Minteer et al, Science (2014).pdf

But then see: https://www.dmns.org/media/2106160/190-science2014.pdf and http://biology.unm.edu/Witt/pub_files/Science-2014-Rocha-814-5.pdf

So a disagreement is only productive if a stringent protocol of procedures is followed? So tell me what are the requirements necessary in order to be accepted within the class of acceptable persons ALLOWED to disagree?

There is such thing as an expert opinion - What you're saying is that despite being uninformed, you're able to make a decision on how ethical and useful collecting this bird was, and that your opinion is as valid - better even - as that of people who have trained in this field for years and years, and have been working in the area for decades. I am saying that it is not, that's all. I'm also not asking you to trust - I only did that as a last ditch appeal after providing mountains of empirical data. This is what I'm talking about - http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

Ah, and again, who decides who is an expert? Who decides who is informed and who is uninformed? Is that determined retroactively by the opinion being offered as an argument, such that the label of someone being an "expert" can be withdrawn retroactively if some of the other more established "experts" don't like the opinions being presented?

My opinion is invalid because I don't qualify for some arbitrary standards set up by some self professed experts on the topic matter? Cool..... A person is either inside the "club" and assigned the labels of being an "expert" and being "informed" and therefore has opinions worthy of being debated. And anyone else can be summarily dismissed as being unworthy of consideration because they are outside of the "club"? Is that how it works?

While we are talking about definitions, just what exactly IS the definition of a "scientist"? How does one earn that title? And who is it that bestows that title on the worthy?

As far as climate change - scientists make no claims on what your taxes should be or what rules should be followed. That's not their job and they don't usually venture past that. They report evidence towards facts, make basic interpretations, and predict models/outcomes, they don't make policy. I think you're confused about what science is and what scientists do. I don't watch much, but I've noticed a lot of the media doesn't report it well, particularly Fox.
Climate science is also quite a bit more complicated than some secondhand reporter calling something cooling, warming, or change. Change is the best word so that's what it got labeled as most recently. Parts of the climate will cool, others will warm - results confirmed as we gained more data and increased computing power. Changing your position based on available data is something that's not detrimental in science. As far as scientists having no idea what is happening where, here's models of current and future climate scenarios over the next 100 years at 10' resolution https://www.climond.org/BioclimRegistry.aspx - to say that we have no idea what is going on is absurd anti-climate change rhetoric.

I see. So scientists are free to make whatever proclamations they want without consideration of the consequences. No matter whether they are even the least bit accurate or even truthful. Yeah, yeah, I know.. No scientist would EVER lie in order to keep a grant, get a grant, or chance losing tenure or otherwise employment or GAIN tenure and/or open up employment opportunities. Scientists are above all that, right? Completely isolated from the political processes in all respects. And the possibility that policies will be made from such predictions will have absolutely NO influence whatsoever on any scientist concerning the facts they find, the interpretations of such facts, and their predictions based on same. Tell me again, who pays the paychecks for scientists? Who pays the establishments that pay their salaries? Or are they all independently wealthy?

So what is a "grant" and where does that normally originate from? And we all know that there can NEVER be any strings attached to them, right?

Yes, the latest darling catch phrase to scare the masses is now "change" when applied to the climate. I suppose there was a different batch of scientists that claimed that we were headed towards global cooling. And then they were tossed out on their ears to make room for the next batch claiming catastrophic global warming was breathing down our necks and inescapable unless we did something RIGHT NOW. Thank God this new batch of scientists has got it right! Right? Right??

So didn't those previous batches of scientists also have models and predictions? They were wrong? Bad scientists? Not really the experts they claimed to be, or were they just uninformed back then? But heck, wait a minute. I'll watch the weather and often will hear the forecasters claim something like "there is something brewing there in the Atlantic, but it's too early to tell....." Did someone take away their computers? Or do they have less qualified scientists working for the weather service? Or do predictions become MORE accurate once you get beyond that pesky 10 day forecast barrier? It's too early to tell what is going to be happening in the next few days but DEFINITELY not too early to say what is going to be happening 100 years from now? Must be some humdinger computers someone is using that won't share them with the local weather forecaster scientist folks.

You want to know what I think is the problem with science? No? Well, didn't think that you would. But I'll tell you anyway. My belief is that science just doesn't understand that it is OK to say "We just don't know", and stop making up crap to slap the label of "theory" on and then pretend it is FACT. They have forgotten that most of what they "know" isn't really known at all, but is based on the latest whiz-bang theories that someone made up hoping that it would explain things that they didn't want to look stupid saying "We just don't know" about.

And no, it doesn't take an expert on internal combustion engines, programmable engine controllers, and fluid dynamics applied to fuel control, as well as intake and exhaust gases to be able to make an informed opinion that "My car just isn't running right." Often all it takes is just someone that is capable of paying attention and observing what is going on around them. I don't need to know how rain is formed to know it is raining.

So for all you scientists still defending one or more of your clan that have no qualms about killing some of the last remaining KNOWN specimens of a possibly declining species without KNOWING otherwise, your science "just isn't running right", in my opinion.

 

[Occidentalis]

A scientific disagreement is only productive one is willing to work within a body of literature. I'm concerned with facts - ones that are verifiable in the literature - those are my "stringent" terms. I really can't help otherwise. That's going to have to be how it is. I'm sorry you have such a poor outlook on how scientists and science works. Your view is not how we operate. We definitely need better science literacy and science education programs in this country to get better connections out there. I'm just going to touch on a few points and be done with this since I feel like I'm repeating myself.

Short term weather forecasting is very different than long term climate modeling. Yes, short term is less accurate because you're asking for specifics on a day to day rather than modeling long term trends. The thing is, not only can we test and verify long term trends with climate data as it's happening, we can quantify the error around these estimates. That's part of the beauty of it. There are also a number of independent estimates - and good journals require the use of multiple best and worst case scenario type modeling to have your paper even looked at in the peer review process.

A theory in science is not a "whiz-bang thing". I think a lot of people miss this because when things get complicated, some science appears as magic to non-experts. I know astro-physics certainly does to me. A theory is a testable idea propped up by mountains of evidence. There's nothing flimsy about it. Flimsy parts of theories are called hypotheses and are tested with new evidence, if they don't hold they are revised and tested again. I don't know a single scientist who would not be comfortable saying "we don't know" - and many do. I have many times, in papers and in conferences and have never faced ridicule. But we sometimes offer plausible hypotheses that can then be tested. Science is a process that builds on itself, that's why it's so powerful.

So for all you scientists still defending one or more of your clan that have no qualms about killing some of the last remaining KNOWN specimens of a possibly declining species without KNOWING otherwise, your science "isn't running right".

You last comment is frustrating because the sources we have been linking refute it blatantly, but are unacceptable to you because they are written by other scientists.
We have demonstrated that:
this bird is probably not rare (but perhaps debatably so, we're admittedly relying on the opinion of locals as well as someone who has been working in the area for 20 years, this is not infallible).
the scientist who collected the bird did have "qualms".
scientific collecting does not alter a population trajectory, even if very few individuals are left in the wild.
the extreme value of this animal as a specimen
collecting ethics are already overseen at the in-house, local, regional and federal level both at home and abroad.

These are the points to argue - to me, all that's left is an emotional argument that killing a pretty bird is bad regardless of its ability to save not only its species, but the unique environment in which it lives, or that scientists are part of some big conspiracy to get your tax dollars and make a name for themselves regardless of what they have to do or any empirical truth. I really have a hard time believing any part of the conspiracy argument (honestly I find it rather paranoid/delusional), especially because it usually only pops up with regard to science when it comes to climate change denial and anti-vaccine, anti-fluoride popular literature.

 

[Lucille]

A scientific disagreement is only productive one is willing to work within a body of literature. I'm concerned with facts - ones that are verifiable in the literature - those are my "stringent" terms. I really can't help otherwise. That's going to have to be how it is. I'm sorry you have such a poor outlook on how scientists and science works. Your view is not how we operate.

My father was a scientist, and he welcomed and responded to my questions and comments when we discussed his work. He did not operate the way you claim scientists operate. On the contrary, he clearly believed that science is a dialogue and that all of us had a right to talk.

He was from a poor family in a bad part of town, and struggled and studied to achieve. He never turned his back on the feeling he had that science was not an exclusive club, but was for everyone to participate in and question.

He certainly championed the scientific method- he vigorously would comb through experiments I proposed and even at a very young age I was introduced to scientific concepts of proper experiment, but even when his peers were over for dinner, every question was a good question, and I was never told that I had to prequalify to ask it.

 

[Occidentalis]

Lucille, I never said science was exclusionary, only that there are indeed informed opinions. I provided answers and links to empirical studies to address all issues. There aren't any real questions or arguments here, just accusations that scientists like your dad are corrupt and we can't trust what they have to say.

 

[Lucille]

Lucille, I never said science was exclusionary

A scientific disagreement is only productive one is willing to work within a body of literature.

That seems exclusionary to me. My father's vision is that everyone had a seat at the table. I did not need to prequalify to ask questions.

There aren't any real questions or arguments here, just accusations that scientists like your dad are corrupt and we can't trust what they have to say.

You are not reading carefully, there have not been blanket accusations, only points made that some information is self serving.
Although there is no question whatsoever in my mind that there are corrupt scientists that cannot be trusted, just like there are untrustworthy people in any profession, and on the BOI, and so on.

 

[WebSlave]

A scientific disagreement is only productive one is willing to work within a body of literature. I'm concerned with facts - ones that are verifiable in the literature - those are my "stringent" terms. I really can't help otherwise. That's going to have to be how it is. I'm sorry you have such a poor outlook on how scientists and science works. Your view is not how we operate. We definitely need better science literacy and science education programs in this country to get better connections out there. I'm just going to touch on a few points and be done with this since I feel like I'm repeating myself.

Short term weather forecasting is very different than long term climate modeling. Yes, short term is less accurate because you're asking for specifics on a day to day rather than modeling long term trends. The thing is, not only can we test and verify long term trends with climate data as it's happening, we can quantify the error around these estimates. That's part of the beauty of it. There are also a number of independent estimates - and good journals require the use of multiple best and worst case scenario type modeling to have your paper even looked at in the peer review process.

A theory in science is not a "whiz-bang thing". I think a lot of people miss this because when things get complicated, some science appears as magic to non-experts. I know astro-physics certainly does to me. A theory is a testable idea propped up by mountains of evidence. There's nothing flimsy about it. Flimsy parts of theories are called hypotheses and are tested with new evidence, if they don't hold they are revised and tested again. I don't know a single scientist who would not be comfortable saying "we don't know" - and many do. I have many times, in papers and in conferences and have never faced ridicule. But we sometimes offer plausible hypotheses that can then be tested. Science is a process that builds on itself, that's why it's so powerful.


You last comment is frustrating because the sources we have been linking refute it blatantly, but are unacceptable to you because they are written by other scientists.
We have demonstrated that:
this bird is probably not rare (but perhaps debatably so, we're admittedly relying on the opinion of locals as well as someone who has been working in the area for 20 years, this is not infallible).
the scientist who collected the bird did have "qualms".
scientific collecting does not alter a population trajectory, even if very few individuals are left in the wild.
the extreme value of this animal as a specimen
collecting ethics are already overseen at the in-house, local, regional and federal level both at home and abroad.

These are the points to argue - to me, all that's left is an emotional argument that killing a pretty bird is bad regardless of its ability to save not only its species, but the unique environment in which it lives, or that scientists are part of some big conspiracy to get your tax dollars and make a name for themselves regardless of what they have to do or any empirical truth. I really have a hard time believing any part of the conspiracy argument (honestly I find it rather paranoid/delusional), especially because it usually only pops up with regard to science when it comes to climate change denial and anti-vaccine, anti-fluoride popular literature.

So when did "science" become "religion" that shalt not be questioned unless you are a member of the "order"?

READ THE SCRIPTURES, you command! You must have faith, grasshopper! Trust us, we know what we are doing even if you are not capable of understanding! We act in mysterious ways to the unclean and uninitiated masses! KILL THE INFIDELS!! Oops, sorry got carried away....

I am sorry that I am not worthy in your eyes to discuss this with you.