So: Many experts now agree ... some birds use fire as a weapon.

[dann]

That's great! I know absolutely nothing about your person.
I know your arguments, however, and that is the only thing I criticize.

[jimbob]

dann and smartcooky, but especially dann, Cut out the personal attacks

Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:jimbob

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I agree to a point. It would be nice to have video, but unlike dann, I do not agree that the lack of video automatically equates to the dozens of reliable eye-witnesses lying, being wrong or being mistaken.

Doveryay, no proveryay.... trust but verify.

Do you know how many reliable witnesses have seen Bigfoot

Surely they are not all wrong, lying or mistaken.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Do you know how many reliable witnesses have seen Bigfoot

Surely they are not all wrong, lying or mistaken.

How many of them are university anthropologists?

Well, even if any of them were, the Bigfoot argument is still not a valid analogy

I don't want to get off topic here, but in the case of Bigfoot, the reliable witnesses might be wrong about what they saw, but I see no reason not to generally accept that they have seen something and simply misidentified it. e.g. If I observe an aircraft and report that it is an Airbus A320 when its actually a Boeing 737, I still witnessed an aircraft, I am simply mistaken about what make & model it was. In my opinion the vast majority of Bigfoot sightings are simply mis-identifications of North American Black Bears (for reasons I have explained before in other threads).

The difference in the subject of this thread, is that the witnesses are not observing a "thing" they are observing an "event". If I observed aircraft take off and witnessed a wheel falling off or a hatch opening, that is witnessing an event.

[Skeptical Greg]

How about the old skeptical cliche:

The plural of anecdote is not 'data'.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

How about the old skeptical cliche:

The plural of anecdote is not 'data'.

How about this old legal cliche:

Eye witness accounts are not anecdotes

[Chanakya]

Not sure what to make of this. Very interesting discussion, though.

Also, the more general discussion around whether or not eyewitness accounts count, that is interesting to me. Again, undecided where I myself stand on that,



One thing dann said, that makes sense to me: Should some people in a position of authority actually believe this thing about birds deliberately starting fires: Wouldn't they be out clamoring to have these birds shot? To have people with guns accompany firefighting teams, tasked with shooting down these arsonists? (ETA: Maybe pre-emptively just kill all birds of those species if seen in areas where they might pose a risk?)

(That last doesn't speak to the claim itself, but to how strongly the eyewitnesses believe what they say they saw. And I don't mean this rhetorically, like I said I'm not taking any position on this: it's possible they did ask that this be done, but their demand was turned down by unbelieving authorities. Or maybe in one or two cases there are indeed gun-toting bird killers accompanying firemen? Might be interesting to know, should this info be available.)

[dann]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

How about the old skeptical cliche:

The plural of anecdote is not 'data'.

In a skeptical forum, one would think that this argument wouldn't be countered with a reference to legalese.
The same thing goes for referring to anthropologists as particularly reliable witnesses in a case of (alleged) animal behavior.
It is not as if anthropologists in particular would be influenced by the myths about fire-spreading birds they heard from aboriginal Australians, is it?!

Anthropologists wouldn't even be particularly reliable witnesses in the case of Bigfoot observations unless we were talking about the observation of a whole flange of 'Bigfeet' and their interaction or about the bodies of dead samples. In that case, an anthropologist might be able to tell us something about their burial rituals:
"Anthropology is the study of aspects of humans within past and present societies." (Wikipedia)

The reference to alleged authorities in the case of 'fire-spreading' birds is a direct parallel to the reference to alleged authorities in the case of Bigfoot and UFO observations, as I have already pointed out - with links! - in this thread.
The reference to anthropologists (or "university anthropologists" to make it sound even more sciency) is repetitive and not worth bothering with. It's same old, same old, and nothing learned. We always hear that argument from the fringe when they insist that skeptics should not be skeptical of anecdotal evidence but instead be more open-minded, in particular when the anecdotes are told by alleged experts (they can always find one or two with a degree in something):

It is not a better argument in this thread than it is in a conversation with Bigfoot or UFO fanatics:

Originally Posted by smartcooky

To expect it to be videoed, and making a positive claim that it is NOT happening because it is NOT videoed is just complete BS, and indicative of a mind that is closed and bolted shut.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Not sure what to make of this. Very interesting discussion, though.

Also, the more general discussion around whether or not eyewitness accounts count, that is interesting to me. Again, undecided where I myself stand on that.

If eye-witness accounts don't count as evidence, then the courts and the judicial system will be in very deep poodoo, and there are a LOT of people who will have been convicted without any legitimate evidence against them.

Originally Posted by Chanakya

One thing dann said, that makes sense to me: Should some people in a position of authority actually believe this thing about birds deliberately starting fires: Wouldn't they be out clamoring to have these birds shot? To have people with guns accompany firefighting teams, tasked with shooting down these arsonists? (ETA: Maybe pre-emptively just kill all birds of those species if seen in areas where they might pose a risk?)

Firstly, the claim is that fires are spread by birds, not started by them.

Secondly, the proportion of existing fires that have been claimed to have been spread by birds would be minuscule compared the number of fires spread by other known means, winds and embers alighting in unburned places.

Thirdly, the birds in question are all raptors. Since 1971, all raptors in Australia have been protected by legislation. Killing them attracts a fine up to AU$10,000 per bird.

[macdoc]

Quote:

myths about fire-spreading birds they heard from aboriginal Australians, is it?!

Anthropologists wouldn't even be particularly reliable witnesses in the case of Bigfoot observations unless we were talking about the observation of a whole flange of 'Bigfeet' and their interaction or about the bodies of dead samples. In that case, an anthropologist might be able to tell us something about their burial rituals:

You ever going to stop the pejorative comments and absurd comparisons to Bigfoot and UFOs ?
Your continuous dissing of rangers and others reporting behavior is disrespectful and only reflects on you in a very negative manner.

To be a skeptic means to be informed about the topic...you are not.
Neils Bohr could be skeptical of Einstein and be respectful despite their differences..... that's the standard.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by macdoc

You ever going to stop the pejorative comments and absurd comparisons to Bigfoot and UFOs ?

Yep. UFOs fail as an analogy for the same reasons as Bigfoot (which I outlined in this post) http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=604

People who see UFOs have very likely seen something but they have likely misidentified what they have seen (been there, done that). When we get to CE3K's, they are extraordinary claims and therefore require extraordinary evidence, but the idea that bird might intentionally pick up smouldering sticks and spread fire to flush out prey is not an extraordinary one.

We already know that birds are very smart.
We already know they fashion and tools to get food.
We already know that they are able predict the physical results of their actions
We already know that they are able to chain together multiple actions to obtain a result.

Spreading fires to flush out prey is definitely not a stretch!

Originally Posted by macdoc

Your continuous dissing of rangers and others reporting behavior is disrespectful and only reflects on you in a very negative manner.

Hand-waving away inconvenient evidence that might go against a preferred narrative is usually par for the course when it comes to conspiracy theorists, not skeptics.
.
.

[dann]

Originally Posted by macdoc

Quote:

myths about fire-spreading birds they heard from aboriginal Australians, is it?!

Anthropologists wouldn't even be particularly reliable witnesses in the case of Bigfoot observations unless we were talking about the observation of a whole flange of 'Bigfeet' and their interaction or about the bodies of dead samples. In that case, an anthropologist might be able to tell us something about their burial rituals:

You ever going to stop the pejorative comments and absurd comparisons to Bigfoot and UFOs ?

That you don't approve of the comments and comparisons to Bigfoot and UFOs doesn't make those comments and comparisons pejorative or absurd. They are to the point. The parallels are obvious, and the point has been argued by others than me in this thread.
That you would like to see any such comparison banned in a skeptics forum is absurd.

Quote:

Your continuous dissing of rangers and others reporting behavior is disrespectful and only reflects on you in a very negative manner.

I don't 'diss' rangers, I am not disrespectful to them. I don't even know those rangers. I point out how unreliable their anecdotes are as evidence of fire-spreading birds. An argument against something is not a sign of disrespect. Not even when it contradicts a belief that you hold dear.

Quote:

To be a skeptic means to be informed about the topic...you are not.
Neils Bohr could be skeptical of Einstein and be respectful despite their differences..... that's the standard.

You accuse me of being uninformed about the topic! You accuse me of of being disrespectful. Have you considered this properly? Why do you diss me like this instead of considering my arguments?

I have explained carefully, meticulously, with examples and links, why the presented anecdotes don't prove the idea of fire-spreading birds. The arguments and facts presented to you respect your implied ability to understand those arguments and facts. I don't resort to calling you uninformed about the topic. I do the exact opposite: I inform you!
When the arguments for the eyewitness reports abut UFOs and Bigfoot are the same as the arguments for the alleged observations of fire-spreading birds, it is not disrespectful to point out this parallel. It's reality.

This thread is really not on the level of Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein, so I'll leave them out of it. They never claimed that the veracity of their theories depended on the anecdotes of alleged eyewitnesses.


ETA: Why don't you use the quote function? Why not link to the quoted post? Is it the word myth that you think is pejorative? Is that why you bolded it?

Quote:

Sometimes, our everyday usage of a word is the same as its scholarly use; when it comes to the word myth, however, this is not the case. Myth is used often in popular culture to mean something that is false or deceptive, a made-up story that is not true, as in the TV series MythBusters. In anthropology, however, myth is defined as a well-known story that explains primary principles, beliefs, and values outside of chronological time. Pieces of a myth may or may not be true. Its veracity is not what matters; it is most important for what it teaches. Many times, the characters within myths are culture heroes, semidivine persons whose experiences and lives serve as a teaching tool, allowing those within the culture to identify with them and learn from their challenges. Myths shape a society’s worldview, explain its origins, and also teach and affirm social norms (Moro 2012).
13.4: Myth and Religious Doctrine (Libre Texts, Social Sciences)

[dann]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Not sure what to make of this. Very interesting discussion, though.

Also, the more general discussion around whether or not eyewitness accounts count, that is interesting to me. Again, undecided where I myself stand on that,

It is interesting to me, too, and extremely relevant for the discussion in this thread.
I don't think there is one way to stand on eyewitness accounts. It depends on what is supposed to have been witnessed and the bias of witnesses. Such accounts may be outright lies. Sometimes mere misunderstandings. We tend to 'see' what we would like to see. We report what we imagine we saw. Obvious examples of the latter are people's eyewitness reports from psychic seances. Or even from magic shows: 'But I saw him place it in his left hand!' No, you didn't!
Many of my arguments about the validity of eyewitness accounts in the case of fire-spreading birds have been moved to AAH.

Quote:

One thing dann said, that makes sense to me: Should some people in a position of authority actually believe this thing about birds deliberately starting fires: Wouldn't they be out clamoring to have these birds shot? To have people with guns accompany firefighting teams, tasked with shooting down these arsonists? (ETA: Maybe pre-emptively just kill all birds of those species if seen in areas where they might pose a risk?)

I would say it's a case of culpable negligence not to have hunters with shotguns accompany firefighters in the bush, but I would prefer to see the firefighters accompanied by videographers even though it wouldn't convince people who believe in the story about fire-spreading birds: Proving a negative in this case can't really be done, not even on video, which is why the burden of proof lies with the people who claim that there's a there there.

Quote:

(That last doesn't speak to the claim itself, but to how strongly the eyewitnesses believe what they say they saw. And I don't mean this rhetorically, like I said I'm not taking any position on this: it's possible they did ask that this be done, but their demand was turned down by unbelieving authorities. Or maybe in one or two cases there are indeed gun-toting bird killers accompanying firemen? Might be interesting to know, should this info be available.)

I like the idea! Gun-toting bird killers accompanying firemen would be fairly easy to catch on camera!

[dann]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Hand-waving away inconvenient evidence that might go against a preferred narrative is usually par for the course when it comes to conspiracy theorists, not skeptics.

Which is why, if there were just a grain of truth in the stories about fire-spreading birds, it should be reported immediately to the proper authorities with a demand that they take action.
Why wouldn't those eyewitnesses have done so already?
Or maybe they actually did, and the authorities just pretend that there have been no such reports to mislead an ignorant and unsuspecting public.
Can it be true? Is the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience in cahoots with those pyromaniacal birds?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

How about this old legal cliche:

Eye witness accounts are not anecdotes

Except for Bigfoot?


Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence

I just picked this out of hundreds of articles.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by macdoc

You ever going to stop the pejorative comments and absurd comparisons to Bigfoot and UFOs ?
Your continuous dissing of rangers and others reporting behavior is disrespectful and only reflects on you in a very negative manner.

To be a skeptic means to be informed about the topic...you are not.
Neils Bohr could be skeptical of Einstein and be respectful despite their differences..... that's the standard.

Rangers and other respected professionals have reported seeing Bigfoot. ( ...and UFOs )

I'm not saying birds don't intentionally start/spread fires, I'm just saying we shouldn't be dropping our standards of evidence because we find ourselves suddenly credulous for one reason or another.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Rangers and other respected professionals have reported seeing Bigfoot. ( ...and UFOs )

No, you are misrepresenting what macdoc said.

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I'm not saying birds don't intentionally start/spread fires, I'm just saying we shouldn't be dropping our standards of evidence because we find ourselves suddenly credulous for one reason or another.

I agree... and absolutely no-one here is doing that.

Some, however, are handwaving away any and all evidence, regardless of its source, then disrespecting, insulting and demeaning those report what they have seen... and that is an even lower standard of skepticism.

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Except for Bigfoot?


Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence

I just picked this out of hundreds of articles.

Show me the part where it says eye-witness accounts are not evidence.

[dann]

The irony is that when I googled 'this old legal cliche', "Eye witness accounts are not anecdotes," this is what I got:
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts (Scientific American, Jan 1, 2010).
Maybe it's time skeptics start listening to science. I highly recommend it.

[angrysoba]

Mick West’s Twitter feed is hilarious. It’s a litany of people saying “oh yeah, what’s this then?” Shows a picture of a streetlight.
“It’s a streetlight!”
“Oh yeah, well what about this?” Shows picture of a balloon.
“It’s a balloon!”
“Oh yeah. And what about this?” Shows picture of a plane.
“It’s a plane!”

UFOs are actually a good analogy because we have plenty of eyewitness testimony from people who we might be inclined to believe are not mere fabulists. People who fly jets in the Navy, people who work for NASA. Eric Weinstein who some people think is a physics genius who has invented a theory that goes beyond Einstein, claims that there is some guy in government, who he has never met, who has classified information about UFOs that he wants Eric to have. Eric is a smart guy so knows this guy is for real and not pulling an elaborate prank on him. But the guy has kept having to cancel their meetings over the last three or four years.

These people surely believe that UFOs are real because not ALL the pictures can be wrong can they? Maybe 90% or so are fake. That still leaves loads of real ones, right? Also, what about ancient aliens, huh? There are pictures of them all over the world and also monuments and statues. So there we have it: eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence and even traditions that agree, oh and corn circles.

But no, I am of course joking. And yes, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable as well.

[dann]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

We already know that birds are very smart.
We already know they fashion and tools to get food.
We already know that they are able predict the physical results of their actions
We already know that they are able to chain together multiple actions to obtain a result.

Spreading fires to flush out prey is definitely not a stretch!

We already know that about 18,000 new species are discovered every year.
We already know that there are several species of primates.
A new species of orangutan was discovered as late as 1997.
We already know that several other Homo existed but are now extinct.
Denisovans and Frlores Man were not discovered until this millennium.

The existence of Bigfoot is definitely not a stretch!

However, I would still appreciate having a conversation with one or at least watch a tv series like Keeping Up with the Bigfoots before I start believing that they actually exist. It is too easy to make up a reason why something might exist or could exist but just hasn't been documented yet.

[dann]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Eric Weinstein who some people think is a physics genius who has invented a theory that goes beyond Einstein, claims that there is some guy in government, who he has never met, who has classified information about UFOs that he wants Eric to have. Eric is a smart guy so knows this guy is for real and not pulling an elaborate prank on him. But the guy has kept having to cancel their meetings over the last three or four years.

I don't know what to think of Garry Nolan, who is no doubt a legit scientists, but what is he even saying?

Quote:

Asked by moderator Alex Klokus, founder and managing partner of Salt Fund, if he believes intelligent extraterrestrials have ever visited Earth, Nolan said that not only does he believe they have been here in the past, but that they are here right now.
“It’s been here a long time,” Nolan said of his suspicions that an exotic form of intelligence may be lurking nearby.
“And it’s still here,” he added.

Are they here right now? If they are still here why does he then only suspect that an exotic form of intelligence may be lurking nearby? Or is the exotic form of intelligence something that is still here in addition to the other intelligent extraterrestrials? And what exactly does professor Nolan smoke?

[dann]

Originally Posted by macdoc

Quote:

myths about fire-spreading birds they heard from aboriginal Australians, is it?!

Anthropologists wouldn't even be particularly reliable witnesses in the case of Bigfoot observations unless we were talking about the observation of a whole flange of 'Bigfeet' and their interaction or about the bodies of dead samples. In that case, an anthropologist might be able to tell us something about their burial rituals:

You ever going to stop the pejorative comments and absurd comparisons to Bigfoot and UFOs ?
Your continuous dissing of rangers and others reporting behavior is disrespectful and only reflects on you in a very negative manner.

To be a skeptic means to be informed about the topic...you are not.
Neils Bohr could be skeptical of Einstein and be respectful despite their differences..... that's the standard.

It just occurred to me that you, macdoc, are an eyewitness to one of my posts. Your post is witness testimony about that post. You have read it and other posts of mine, and now you describe what you have read to people reading this thread.

How much of your account is based on what I actually write?
How much of your account is based on how my criticism of your ideas has offended you on a personal level even though my criticism was of arguments and of the interpretation of alleged facts?
How much of your accusation that I am disrespectful to rangers is due to your anger, "" because I criticize statements that you see as confirmation of your belief?
Isn't the truth that my criticism of the reliability of eyewitnesses offends your belief in the witness reports of those rangers, which makes my arguments seem disrespectful?
[]
Now consider the rangers:
On the one hand, you want us to recognize them as expert witnesses. They are professional firefighters (albeit not ornithologists!). Their claim is that they have seen birds spread fire by picking up burning or smoldering twigs and dropping them in dry grass.
But as it has been pointed out today, a thing that seems strange about their accounts (at least it does to me) is that they don't seem to be upset at all by the (alleged) fact that those damned birds are making their job harder. It's not something that people usually appreciate, and I know I don't. I know how much it annoyed me when I was cleaning the roof and there was bird **** all over it before I had finished. Or when I was painting it and birds landed and left footprints in the wet paint.
Somehow, those firefighters don't seem to be bothered by birds spreading fire. Strange, isn't it?

My point is that, much like you, they like the idea that these birds spread fire more than they would like the actual fact if they did, and so it doesn't take much for them to imagine that they have actually seen them do it themselves. And the anthropologists probably like those stories too and maybe even more so. They may already be imagining the articles they are going to write:

Anthropogenic Climate Change and What We Can Learn from Indigenous Peoples Living with Nature
What Aboriginal Australians Have Known for Millennia and We Are Only Now Beginning to Grasp
Fire-Spreading Birds in Aboriginal Mythology - A Lesson for the New Millennium?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

....


Show me the part where it says eye-witness accounts are not evidence.

The part where it says it's not reliable doesn't count?

[dann]

At this point, I think that even if it said that eye-witness accounts are extremely unreliable evidence, we would be told, 'Yes, but notice that it still says that eye-witness accounts are evidence'.

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes, but it only counts if it supports the position one has taken.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

If eye-witness accounts don't count as evidence, then the courts and the judicial system will be in very deep poodoo, and there are a LOT of people who will have been convicted without any legitimate evidence against them.

Fair enough, agreed. About eyewitness accounts in courts of law, I mean to say.

Like I said, I was entirely undecided about this. But what I'm now tending towards is the "Extraordinary claims need to be backed up with extraordinary evidence" thing.

So that, my tentative take on this would be: All of these eyewitness takes should be taken seriously, sure; but what sounds reasonable to me is that the result of that should be an all-out investigation into this phenomenon, into ascertaining whether this is truly a thing. Not dismissal of the claims, absolutely not; but investigation into this, is what ought to follow. (Directly accepting the claims as true, that, all things considered, looks to me like skipping a step, maybe?)

Quote:

Firstly, the claim is that fires are spread by birds, not started by them.

Secondly, the proportion of existing fires that have been claimed to have been spread by birds would be minuscule compared the number of fires spread by other known means, winds and embers alighting in unburned places.

Thirdly, the birds in question are all raptors. Since 1971, all raptors in Australia have been protected by legislation. Killing them attracts a fine up to AU$10,000 per bird.

I'm not sure that should matter. I mean, sure, fires spread, not started, okay. Again, small numbers of fires, relatively speaking, that too. (Although if this is a thing, and the birds learn from one another, then this might soon escalate, like a lot. And also, what they've observed, that in itself might be just a fraction of all the cases that actually happened. Provided it's actually a thing.)

And not sure the protected species factor should matter, for something this serious. Fires cause huge destruction, they kill people. Not to mention kill other species of creatures, and plants and trees, and all of that. So would the raptors' protected status really make them inviolable?

I mean, if you've got a whole bunch of tigers, or lions, or whatever, over at Africa, suddenly rampaging and aggressively attacking villages and suchlike, and killing human beings, then I'd imagine they'd not worry too much about conserving the tigers and lions, and just shoot them dead. Not illegally, I mean pass whatever law needs to be passed, to bypass that conservation angle. Likewise here?

I realize that this does not speak to the claim itself, but only to how strongly the eyewitnesses hold to the claim. And again, what they ask for they may not necessarily get, just because they ask. But if a firefighter actually sees with his own eyes a bird coolly pick up a burning twig in its beak, and fly across, and then deliberately spread the fire further: well then, wouldn't he try his best to bring this to the attention of his higher-ups, and provided that's not a one-off, ask that these birds be killed?

To be clear, this last, it's not me being skeptical. Regardless of the claim being true, that the eyewitnesses think they saw this happening, that seems fact. (I'm assuming they aren't all lying, why would they do that en masse!) Well, then, it stands to reason that at least some of them would have tried to get these birds killed. And I was wondering if there might be some way to find out if that is actually the case. (And again, I realize that finding out about something like that seems very difficult, some guy/s asking for this and then getting turned down, but still.)

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by dann

It is interesting to me, too, and extremely relevant for the discussion in this thread.
I don't think there is one way to stand on eyewitness accounts. It depends on what is supposed to have been witnessed and the bias of witnesses. Such accounts may be outright lies. Sometimes mere misunderstandings. We tend to 'see' what we would like to see. We report what we imagine we saw. Obvious examples of the latter are people's eyewitness reports from psychic seances. Or even from magic shows: 'But I saw him place it in his left hand!' No, you didn't!
Many of my arguments about the validity of eyewitness accounts in the case of fire-spreading birds have been moved to AAH.




I would say it's a case of culpable negligence not to have hunters with shotguns accompany firefighters in the bush, but I would prefer to see the firefighters accompanied by videographers even though it wouldn't convince people who believe in the story about fire-spreading birds: Proving a negative in this case can't really be done, not even on video, which is why the burden of proof lies with the people who claim that there's a there there.




I like the idea! Gun-toting bird killers accompanying firemen would be fairly easy to catch on camera!

As far as the last, I shouldn't be surprised if actually a bunch of these guys did raise this suggestion/ request/ demand, that the birds be shot.

Like I was saying to smartcooky just now, this last doesn't speak to the claim itself. But that they believed they saw this, that much we can probably accept. (Because why would all these professionals go lying their ass off en masse like that.) So that, then, they'd probably have asked their higher-ups, or whatever authority, to arrange to have these birds shot going forward, either preemptively, or at least during the fires.

Clearly their requests were not accepted/humored, because then, like you say, we'd have reportage of these shotgun wielding men accompanying the firefighters, or simply going hunting these birds. But even the fact that some requests of this nature were made, even that might perhaps have been covered in the news, even if in small print somewhere. That's what I was wondering about. It might be interesting to see if there are any such reports. (Although again, I realize how difficult it would be to root out that kind of small-print-tucked-in-a-corner news reports.)

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Mick West’s Twitter feed is hilarious. It’s a litany of people saying “oh yeah, what’s this then?” Shows a picture of a streetlight.
“It’s a streetlight!”
“Oh yeah, well what about this?” Shows picture of a balloon.
“It’s a balloon!”
“Oh yeah. And what about this?” Shows picture of a plane.
“It’s a plane!”

UFOs are actually a good analogy because we have plenty of eyewitness testimony from people who we might be inclined to believe are not mere fabulists. People who fly jets in the Navy, people who work for NASA. Eric Weinstein who some people think is a physics genius who has invented a theory that goes beyond Einstein, claims that there is some guy in government, who he has never met, who has classified information about UFOs that he wants Eric to have. Eric is a smart guy so knows this guy is for real and not pulling an elaborate prank on him. But the guy has kept having to cancel their meetings over the last three or four years.

These people surely believe that UFOs are real because not ALL the pictures can be wrong can they? Maybe 90% or so are fake. That still leaves loads of real ones, right? Also, what about ancient aliens, huh? There are pictures of them all over the world and also monuments and statues. So there we have it: eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence and even traditions that agree, oh and corn circles.

But no, I am of course joking. And yes, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable as well.

But it NOT a good analogy in this case.

When people talk about eye-witnesses being unreliable, they are talking about identification of people and objects - a person sees a murder take place, one person stabs another. They might incorrectly identify the killer, but they still saw the murder take place!! They are mistaken about the person but not the event. Why is this? Its because an eye-witness seeing an object is NOT the same as an-eye witness observing something taking place.

If I observe an aircraft and identify it as an Airbus A320 when its actually a Boeing 737, I still saw something, I just misidentified what I saw.

If I observe an animal of some kind and identify it as Bigfoot when it is actually a Black Bear, I still saw something, I just misidentified what I saw.

If I saw a dark object moving across the sky and thought it was a UFO, and it turned out to be a large swarm of bees, I still saw something, I just misidentified what I saw.

If I see a large raptor land pick up a burning twig then fly off a few metres away and drop it on a patch of dry grass, what on earth could I have misidentified here?

The first three eye-witness accounts above are observations of a thing, an object, in which a misidentification took place, but the fourth is different, it is an account of an event taking place, where is the possible misidentification here?

I have already explained this before - anyone with a modicum of commonsense ought to be able to get this, and I am astonished that people who call themselves skeptics do not understand this very, very simple concept.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

The part where it says it's not reliable doesn't count?

Does "not reliable" = "never accurate" in your view?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Does "not reliable" = "never accurate" in your view?

No.

And?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

No.

Agreed

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

And?

So?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

But it NOT a good analogy in this case.

When people talk about eye-witnesses being unreliable, they are talking about identification of people and objects - a person sees a murder take place, one person stabs another. They might incorrectly identify the killer, but they still saw the murder take place!! They are mistaken about the person but not the event. Why is this? Its because an eye-witness seeing an object is NOT the same as an-eye witness observing something taking place.

If I observe an aircraft and identify it as an Airbus A320 when its actually a Boeing 737, I still saw something, I just misidentified what I saw.

If I observe an animal of some kind and identify it as Bigfoot when it is actually a Black Bear, I still saw something, I just misidentified what I saw.

If I saw a dark object moving across the sky and thought it was a UFO, and it turned out to be a large swarm of bees, I still saw something, I just misidentified what I saw.

If I see a large raptor land pick up a burning twig then fly off a few metres away and drop it on a patch of dry grass, what on earth could I have misidentified here?

The first three eye-witness accounts above are observations of a thing, an object, in which a misidentification took place, but the fourth is different, it is an account of an event taking place, where is the possible misidentification here?

I have already explained this before - anyone with a modicum of commonsense ought to be able to get this, and I am astonished that people who call themselves skeptics do not understand this very, very simple concept.

Wrong!

And silly. People misunderstand what they are seeing all the time. Have you heard of optical illusions?

This is a good one. We can soon start the thread: “experts agree: horses can surf now”

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Agreed

So?

How about another skeptical cliché?

Four cups of weak tea do not make a quart of strong tea..

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Yes, but it only counts if it supports the position one has taken.

Yep. Like the eye-witness accounts of a plane flying "North of CITGO before 'something' smashed into the Pentagon on 9/11"?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Wrong!

And silly. People misunderstand what they are seeing all the time. Have you heard of optical illusions?

This is a good one. We can soon start the thread: “experts agree: horses can surf now”

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Because scores of people such as park rangers, who are very experienced with observing the behaviour of birds, over a period of more than 40 years, were all fooled by the exact same optical illusion... every time!

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Because scores of people such as park rangers, who are very experienced with observing the behaviour of birds, over a period of more than 40 years, were all fooled by the exact same optical illusion... every time!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4exuos06bh...augh.gif?raw=1

Wait. Before you switch to that claim, you have to deal with the debunking of your claim that eye-witnesses are only ever fooled by objects, and never by events.

Then maybe deal with the fact that experts for forty years have been fooled by optical illusions when it comes to the behaviour of UFOs not merely identifying the object. This is why video evidence is required, so that eye witness accounts can be independently verified by others rather than merely adjudicated by people who may be predisposed to a particular interpretation.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

If eye-witness accounts don't count as evidence, then the courts and the judicial system will be in very deep poodoo, and there are a LOT of people who will have been convicted without any legitimate evidence against them.



Firstly, the claim is that fires are spread by birds, not started by them.

Secondly, the proportion of existing fires that have been claimed to have been spread by birds would be minuscule compared the number of fires spread by other known means, winds and embers alighting in unburned places.

Thirdly, the birds in question are all raptors. Since 1971, all raptors in Australia have been protected by legislation. Killing them attracts a fine up to AU$10,000 per bird.

Courts are in deep doo doo precisely because way too much weight is given to eyewitness evidence. It is by far the least realible types of legally allowed evidence, outside of outright bs like criminal profiling or handwriting analysis, allowable in a court setting.

And if you thought for a while you'd know exactly why. Combine imperfect memory with timr distortion, biases, focusing on certain parts to the detriment of others, the various heuristic shortcuts developed over millenia which negate our ability to fully assess situations in preference for quick reactions and you get a situation where a conviction based on eyewitness testimony alone isn't much better than one based on confession after torture.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Wait. Before you switch to that claim, you have to deal with the debunking of your claim that eye-witnesses are only ever fooled by objects, and never by events.

There's nothing to switch - that claim was never made. If you think it was.. show me.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Then maybe deal with the fact that experts for forty years have been fooled by optical illusions when it comes to the behaviour of UFOs not merely identifying the object. This is why video evidence is required, so that eye witness accounts can be independently verified by others rather than merely adjudicated by people who may be predisposed to a particular interpretation.

Gee, I wonder how science got along before the invention of the Handycam?

Oh, and by the way, thank you for helping me out in post #632, for showing a fine example of how video evidence is unreliable...

[dann]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Wait. Before you switch to that claim, you have to deal with the debunking of your claim that eye-witnesses are only ever fooled by objects, and never by events.

Then maybe deal with the fact that experts for forty years have been fooled by optical illusions when it comes to the behaviour of UFOs not merely identifying the object. This is why video evidence is required, so that eye witness accounts can be independently verified by others rather than merely adjudicated by people who may be predisposed to a particular interpretation.

Couldn't agree more!
Instead of looking at what is actually known about eyewitness reports, claims like the one about eyewitnesses being fooled only by objects rather than by events goes against everything we know. It's a typical making-it-up-as-we-go-along claim. One of those claims that any defense attorney would love to pick apart in a court of law.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

But it NOT a good analogy in this case.

Yes, it is! It's an extremely good analogy! Smartcooky's claim is an attempt to give credence to his idea that firemen and "university (!) anthropologists" for some reason are expert witnesses of bird behavior:

Originally Posted by smartcooky

When people talk about eye-witnesses being unreliable, they are talking about identification of people and objects - a person sees a murder take place, one person stabs another. They might incorrectly identify the killer, but they still saw the murder take place!! They are mistaken about the person but not the event. Why is this? Its because an eye-witness seeing an object is NOT the same as an-eye witness observing something taking place.

First of all, in the case of UFOs people not only see objects, they see objects moving in mysterious ways - even when the object is Venus, which tends to be fairly stationary during observations of the night sky even though be know it moves around a lot! It may be due to the foreground or background of those objects or it may be due to the apparent object being a reflection in the window through which something is being observed, or the observers themselves may be in an object that is moving: a car, a train, a ship, a plane.

Besides, it is very well documented by research (not just "people") that eyewitnesses are extremely bad at interpreting events, which shouldn't really come as a surprise to anybody: Events are usually more complicated, considered as objects of observation, than ordinary mere objects.

It is fascinating that smartcooky seems to be in denial of this fact that not only the vast majority of skeptics know about. Everybody has heard the stories, well-documented stories, about policemen, trained and experienced law enforcers, who kill innocent civilians because they (though they) saw them go for a gun that was never actually there. 'He was pulling. gun on me!' No, he wasn't. He was looking for his drivers license.

Quote:

If I observe an aircraft and identify it as an Airbus A320 when its actually a Boeing 737, I still saw something, I just misidentified what I saw.

Yes, if smartcooky actually sees another plane, then that's what he does. And even if he sees the reflection of a bird in a window and mistakes it for a plane or a UAP, he still sees something, but he misinterprets it, which people do! And not just when they are dealing with objects ...

Quote:

If I observe an animal of some kind and identify it as Bigfoot when it is actually a Black Bear, I still saw something, I just misidentified what I saw.

Even if he sees a bush, he still sees something. Robert Bartholomew's favorite Shakespeare quotation, which he has mentioned in almost all the podcasts and interviews he has participated in since the beginning of the 'syndrome': "Or in the night, imagining some fear, How easy is a bush supposed a bear!"
As for the behavior of inanimate objects like bushes and trees, this description is allegedly not uncommon in accident reports: "When they came into the left handed bend he he hit the brakes and then let the brakes off to steer through the bend. The statement continued: "Then I saw a tree coming towards me."" (Mirror) That one also reminds me of Shakespeare!

Quote:

If I saw a dark object moving across the sky and thought it was a UFO, and it turned out to be a large swarm of bees, I still saw something, I just misidentified what I saw.

Beware of the "just" because that's what people do when they observe. It's a well-known fact: Observations are never mere observations. They are interpretations, and far too often, misinterpretations, misidentifications - be it of an object or of a sequence of events.

Quote:

If I see a large raptor land pick up a burning twig then fly off a few metres away and drop it on a patch of dry grass, what on earth could I have misidentified here?

Really? It is what-on-earth unimaginable what could have been misidentified in a situation where birds are there to pick up stuff? A very well-known fact! The expert witnesses see the birds actually picking up something! They may have seen it several times. A whole flock of birds picking up stuff. Again and again. Because that's what the birds are there for! To pick up prey fleeing from or rendered incapable of fleeing by the fire, and taking off with that prey.
A bird may even occasionally mistake a twig for a burnt grasshopper or lizard, taking off with it and dropping it when it doesn't feel or taste right.

Besides, you have flames, you have smoke, and you have the tense situation that smartcooky likes to refer to as an excuse for never having caught any footage of those allegedly fire-spreading birds, but somehow those conditions never seem to occur to him when he describes the observations done by professional firemen and university anthropologists.

Quote:

The first three eye-witness accounts above are observations of a thing, an object, in which a misidentification took place, but the fourth is different, it is an account of an event taking place, where is the possible misidentification here?

See explanation, actual explanation, above! The possibilities of misidentification aren't hard to find - if one is actually looking for instead of being in denial of them.

Quote:

I have already explained this before - anyone with a modicum of commonsense ought to be able to get this, and I am astonished that people who call themselves skeptics do not understand this very, very simple concept.

First of all, misinterpreting events or even objects has nothing to do with common sense. Our common sense is used by magicians to trick us. I have used common-sense references to explain it in this thread, so I think it's time to go beyond common-sense arguments. Look at what science tells us. We have already posted links to a couple of scientific articles about eyewitness reports, which seem to be ignored, so here are a couple of videos:
Witness descriptions after an event:
The Eyewitness Test: How do you stack up?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This video answers the question: How can what we've seen turn into something we never saw?
The Bad Science of Eyewitnesses

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Eyewitness Testimony

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Eyewitness testimony accuracy experiment - memories of a short film clip

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Why eyewitnesses get it wrong - Scott Fraser (TED talk)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Why eyewitnesses fail | Thomas Albright (TEDx talk) "Our misinformed biases caused us to perceive things that don't exist."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Brain Games- False Memory and Misinformation Effect

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

And let me return to my thread about another theme where eye(and particularly: ear)witness reports have caused an awful lot of damage to a whole nation of 11 million people:

The 'syndrome' sufferers in Havana did indeed hear something! They even had the presence of mind to record it in the middle of imaginary supersonic attack on their brains, and they were even more likely to record their anomalous health incidents after they were told by their superiors to do so, which is why we have so much 'evidence' material in the case of the attacks' on U.S. diplomats and spooks.

They not only misinterpreted the sound itself. They also misinterpreted the behavior of the sound at the events! Even a moronic doctor of science, David Relman, the head of two of the 'Havana syndrome' investigative groups, the ones that came up with NASEM's and the Expert Panel's reports, had no idea how sound, quite ordinary sound, behaves. Because of his bias, his interest in finding zebras or unicorns when he should be expecting to see horses (another one of Bartholomew's favorite references), is the reason why he doesn't seem to understand that you [http://www.internationalskeptics.com... go back to it! I kid you not! That is how ******* dumb respected scientists (NASEM!) can be.

(And as for my alleged disrespectfulness and dissing of firefighters. I don't diss them. It is insane to claim that it is in any way disrespectful to them to say that they are no different from ordinary people in the respect that they can screw up when delivering eyewitness reports. This, on the other hand, is me being being 'dissing' alleged experts.
By the way, James Randi was being disrespectful to experts all the time when they didn't deserve respect. I see no reason why one shouldn't be. I feel like I'm paying tribute to Randi when I am!
Reserved respect for people who deserved it. Their titles don't make them worthy of respect.)

[dann]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

The first three eye-witness accounts above are observations of a thing, an object, in which a misidentification took place, but the fourth is different, it is an account of an event taking place, where is the possible misidentification here?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Wait. Before you switch to that claim, you have to deal with the debunking of your claim that eye-witnesses are only ever fooled by objects, and never by events.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

There's nothing to switch - that claim was never made. If you think it was.. show me.

Sophistry!
No, it wasn't made as a claim. Just implied by JAQing off: because events, unlike a thing or an object, can't possibly be misidentified, can they?!
Yes, they can! See post above!