2 Responses

  1. Loren Coleman
    Loren Coleman December 30, 2005 at 12:49 pm |

    Mistakenly deleted comment posted by Benjamin Radford reposted here:

    In Loren Coleman’s round up of 2005 news stories, he states the following:

    “What happened was that those that said they has either seen the ivory-billed or considered the possibility the birds might still exist were roundly ridiculed before this year’s rediscovery announcement.”

    This seems to put skeptics in a bit of a bad light, but is this factual? From my reading of the story, most of the skeptics were quite justified in waiting for stronger evidence before embracing the existence of the woodpecker. In fact, as I recall, skeptics were not convinced by the initial evidence and requested more evidence; the researchers complied, the skeptics examined what was sent, and then agreed that the case was compelling. Where, exactly, was this “ridicule” that skeptics are so often accused of heaping on believers?

    Surely simply doubting an eyewitness or requesting more evidence from claimants is not the same as “ridiculing” them. Can Coleman or anyone else provide any examples of eyewitnesses (or those who were open to the woodpecker existing) who were actually “roundly ridiculed”?

    and this is Loren’s reply:

    I am not worried about putting skeptics in a “bad light” but merely relating what has happened with past sightings of the ivory-billed woodpecker. This list was not about people but events.

    Nevertheless, I find it remarkable than Ben’s comment quotes a statement of mine about people being ridiculed and then he asks me to come up with examples. Perhaps he should re-read the entire ivory-billed woodpecker segment again. I clearly quote two authors about these specific kinds of situations, and give some of the details of George Lowery’s ridiculing that took place when he showed his photographs at a 1971 ornithology meeting.

    It appears Skeptics might be so defensive so quickly that they forget what they have supposedly just read.
    :-)

  2. Loren Coleman
    Loren Coleman December 30, 2005 at 3:22 pm |

    Apparently, Mr. Ben Radford’s comment from this blog was mistakenly deleted by an editor (not me). However, I had saved it and so here it is again. This comment was given above my first one above:

    New comment on your post #297 “The Top Cryptozoology Stories of 2005″

    Author : Benjamin Radford

    Comment:

    In his discussion of the ivory-billed woodpecker case, Loren Coleman states the following:

    “What happened was that those that said they has either seen the ivory-billed or considered the possibility the birds might still exist were roundly ridiculed before this year’s rediscovery announcement.”

    This seems to put skeptics in a bit of a bad light, but is this factual? From my reading of the story, most of the skeptics were quite justified in waiting for stronger evidence before embracing the existence of the woodpecker. In fact, as I recall, skeptics were not convinced by the initial evidence and requested more evidence; the researchers complied, the skeptics examined what was sent, and then agreed that the case was compelling. Where, exactly, was this “ridicule” that skeptics are so often accused of heaping on believers?

    Surely simply doubting an eyewitness or requesting more evidence from claimants is not the same as “ridiculing” them. Can Coleman or anyone else provide any examples of eyewitnesses (or those who were open to the woodpecker existing) who were actually “roundly ridiculed”?

Comments are closed.