5 ms·
> The analysis, published in the journal Science, is the most exhaustive and ambitious attempt yet to learn what is happening to avian populations. > A team of
by appleiigs 7y ago
> The analysis, published in the journal Science, is the most exhaustive and ambitious attempt yet to learn what is happening to avian populations.
> A team of researchers from universities, government agencies and nonprofit organizations collaborated on the new study, which combined old and new methods for counting birds.
> Kevin Gaston, a conservation biologist at the University of Exeter
> Hillary Young, a conservation biologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara
> Scott Loss, a conservation biologist at Oklahoma State University
> Kenneth V. Rosenberg, a conservation scientist at Cornell University and the American Bird Conservancy
> Dr. Young, of the University of California, Santa Barbara
> “If we have two data sets showing the same thing, it’s a home run,” said Nicole Michel, a senior quantitative ecologist at the Audubon Society who was not involved in the study.
> Europe is experiencing a similar loss of birds, also among common species, said Dr. Gaston, of the University of Exeter. “The numbers are broadly comparable,” he said.
So all these people are idiots and you know better?
- joey_bob 7y agoThis appeal to authority probably won't be very effective in convincing thr root commenter about the validity of the study. None of the quotes addres the concerns about counting methods, and the experts cited are more likely to be seen as experts in biology than statistics, inference, and logic.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoIf the experts do this sort of work often they'll be proficient in the application of statistics. We don't distrust engineers because they aren't the people who came up with the physics they are applying.
- joey_bob 7y agoThat's a valid assumption to start with, sure. If the results are called into questions on the basis of statistics, their field of work is no longer a convincing argument. When someone calls into question your design choice, you don't say "trust me an engineer" unless you're joking.
- ping_pong 7y agoNot once does the article state the expected error rate with the calculation. Even polls give an error rate when they are announced. Saying 29% decrease without having an idea of its accuracy is meaningless. This is simple science. We learned about giving error estimates in college in every single experiment, and now it's okay to throw those out because it concurs with your world view? Sorry but I prefer to look at things scientifically. You can continue to believe things that fit in your world view, but I prefer science over religion.